The Assembly met at 12 noon (Speaker [Mr Maskey] in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes' silence.

Matter of the Day

Death of Sarah Everard

Alex Maskey: Miss Rachel Woods has been given leave to make a statement regarding the death of Sarah Everard, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their place and continue to do so. All Members who are called will have up to three minutes to speak on the subject. Before we begin, I remind Members that there are possible sub judice issues related to the matter. I do not want to inhibit comments, but, in accordance with my responsibilities under Standing Order 73, I caution Members to be particularly careful that they say nothing that may prejudice the outcome of criminal proceedings. As ever, no points of order will be taken during this item until it is concluded.

Rachel Woods: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The death of Sarah Everard has brought violence against women and girls into sharp focus. This is not a single death, a single incident or a single tragedy. It is not a rare event. We know that domestic abuse has worsened since the start of the pandemic. Many women cannot stay at home and stay safe because of domestic abuse, and we know that women and girls are not safe on our streets. That will not stop when restrictions are lifted. The problem will remain. Where are women safe?
The death of Sarah has sent shock waves throughout society. Public debate has ensued throughout the UK, and women and girls in Northern Ireland have spoken out to say that they do not feel safe and have had experience of violence and threat visited upon them. It is our turn to listen. Last Monday, many MLAs spoke of their experiences as elected politicians. The harassment, misogyny and, at times, abuse are something that we mostly shared, but this is not about us. This is about every woman and girl who has experienced violence or fear of violence against them. According to the WHO, one in three women globally, which is around 736 million, have been subjected to physical or sexual violence in their lifetime. How many of us have been told not to walk home alone at night? I certainly have. My grandmother used to offer to pick me up from finishing my shift in the bar at 2.00 am to leave me literally up the road, and my mother used to do the same when I started in the bakery at 6.00 am.
How many of us have been groped, touched, told that we were asking for it, assaulted or verbally abused? How many of us have been given a rape alarm? How many of us have been followed home? How many of us have been told, "Don't run at night. Stay in well-lit places. Don't get into the front seat of a car"? How many of us have texted our friends when we got home after a night out or made sure that our friends were safe? How many of us have been victim-blamed or heard that it was our fault that something happened to us? We are not the reason we get attacked.
We are the only part of the UK that has does not have a violence against women and girls strategy to take male violence seriously. Despite my attempts in the Domestic Abuse Bill and the lobbying for many years by the women's sector, this is still the case. It is not for just one Department; this must be a whole-government approach. As I said last week, on International Women's Day, there is a worrying trend in government policies to neutralise gender and the realities that we live in. If we fail to recognise the gendered nature of specific societal issues, we will fail to deal with them, and it is my firm belief that the blind pursuit of policies that neutralise gendered issues is a failure of government. Gender is not neutral. Societal problems like domestic abuse and sexual violence are gendered issues, and, if we fail to recognise this in our government, we fail to effectively tackle such issues. We cannot bury our heads in the sand any more. We need evidence-based strategies to deal with these issues head-on.
My thoughts are with Sarah's family and friends and with every single person who has been a victim.

Alex Maskey: The Member's time is up.

Rachel Woods: These are our streets, too, and we will reclaim them.

Pam Cameron: The death of Sarah Everard was an appalling and tragic act. It has, understandably, reignited the debate about how we tackle violence against women and girls and ensure that they are safe on our streets, in their homes and in society. The dignified acts of individual remembrance for Sarah in Portstewart and Londonderry, among other places, over the weekend highlighted the extent of the outpouring of grief for this young woman. The reality is that this could have been any one of our daughters, sisters or mothers. Communities and households across Northern Ireland stand with the Everard family in their fight for justice and in the determination to drive out unhealthy and violent attitudes towards women in our society. Government need to consider the kind of strategy needed for these issues, and my party will reach out to organisations such as Women's Aid in Northern Ireland to talk to them about what is a very important subject.

Liz Kimmins: I send my condolences to the family and friends of Sarah Everard and express solidarity with all the women and, indeed, men who have come out over the past number of days to share their shock, anger and sadness at the events surrounding Sarah's death. As others said, last Monday, we all came together to celebrate International Women's Day. This Matter of the Day is in stark contrast to everything that that day represents and everything that we celebrated.
It is important to recognise the stark gap created by the lack of a gender-based strategy to deal with violence against women and girls, with the North being the only area in these islands that does not have such a strategy in place. It is time that we get that in place immediately. Gender-based violence has a devastating impact on the lives of thousands of women and children in the North every year, and, as others have said, the COVID pandemic has heightened this to frightening levels. This will continue long past COVID, and it is important that, if we truly want gender equality for all, we put a strategy in place now and try to eliminate it.
I also want to point out the disproportionate response from the Met to the peaceful vigil over the weekend. People showing solidarity in a peaceful way to try to send comfort to the friends and family of Sarah should be allowed to do so without being treated in that way.

Dolores Kelly: I, too, want to be associated with the condolences to Sarah's family. I have five sisters and three daughters, two of whom are roughly the same age as Sarah. I cannot even begin to imagine the heartbreak of her mother today.
Miss Woods is right about the strategy. Women's Aid warned the previous Executive that the strategy was not good enough, that it was gender-neutral and that it did not recognise that women and girls were more likely to be the subject of violence and abuse from men.
At the Policing Board's performance committee meeting last week, we heard from a senior police officer about the past year's crimes against women, including sexual assault and domestic abuse. Over 65% of those crimes were committed against women and girls. The remainder were against men and cases involving children abusing parents. It is nuanced, but the stark fact is that domestic violence is more likely to be against women and girls. That is why I support the call of Women's Aid, which launched a petition last week calling on the Executive and the Justice Minister to put forward a strategy. We have a sterling report by Judge Gillen that is sitting on a number of Ministers' bookshelves. Money is required to bring forward the recommendations that Judge Gillen listed. Some of the steps will not cost much money, but there has to be collaboration right across government. That is what we should all be asking our Ministers to get their head around. They need to roll up their sleeves and say, "Enough is enough".

Rosemary Barton: I, too, send my condolences to Sarah's family at this very sad time. I also have a sister and a daughter. My daughter is slightly younger than Sarah, so I empathise in many ways with what her family is going through at the moment. Sarah was a young woman going about her daily business. She disappeared off our streets without sight and without trace. Nobody saw it happen. Sadly, it is not the first time that that has happened. Women should have the right to walk our streets, to feel safe on our streets and in our countryside and to go out for walks alone. They should not be terrorised. They should not go out with fear in their mind. It is very concerning that, in a UK poll recently, 80% of women reported having been harassed in public and 97% reported having been sexually harassed. That should not be allowed. It cannot go on. Violence is wrong. Catcalling is also wrong.
We have just had International Women's Day. We listened to examples of the abuse that women have to tolerate, from social media abuse to the asides and comments that are made as they walk along the street. We need to drive out those unhealthy attitudes towards women. A strategic plan must be worked on here in Stormont and put in place post-haste for the betterment of everyone.

John Blair: It is right and proper that we are discussing this Matter of the Day. I believe that a number of Members submitted a Matter of the Day on the issue. I, too, send my condolences to the family and friends of Sarah Everard and to all victims.
A nation has been reflecting for over a week now on the matter of violence by men against women. There has, of course, also been much analysis of the Metropolitan Police response to women and their supporters taking a stand on the matter at the weekend. The Matter of the Day before the Assembly, however, is to highlight the fact that, generally, men are the culprits and women are the victims. We, as an Assembly, need to address that fact and tackle that issue before we can move forward with this debate. We cannot address concerns for women's safety without putting men at the centre of the discussion. The collective socialisation of men has led to some becoming predatory. That is why we are at a tipping point. We need to ask what we, as men, can do to protect brothers, partners, friends and colleagues from becoming a perpetrator and a statistic themselves. Research from the femicide census, information collected on men's violence against women, calculates that, across the UK, 1,425 women were killed in the 10 years up to 2018. That is one killing about every three days. Of those killers, 90% were men. Of all women killed by men, 62% were killed by a current or former partner.
My hope is that legislation such as the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Bill, which was recently passed in the House, will go some way towards tackling male violence against women at home.
As the police investigation of the disappearance of Sarah Everard ramped up last week, local women were warned to be careful about venturing out alone. When a police officer was arrested and subsequently charged with Sarah's murder, the head of the Metropolitan Police, Cressida Dick, acknowledged that women in London and beyond will be worried and may well feel scared. She said that a woman being abducted in the street is an "incredibly rare" event. The fact is that it is not an incredibly rare event, and nor is it an issue that is localised to London. On 16 August 2020, Susan Baird was murdered in her south Belfast home. She is the fifth woman to die in suspected violent circumstances in Northern Ireland since the start of lockdown.
Sadly, violence against women is not incredibly rare in this country, and it is very much not just a local issue here. The case of Sarah Everard is the tipping point. It is our George Floyd moment, a catalyst for change to end male violence against women. Women should be able to walk the streets free from harm, fear and threat. We should also acknowledge, up front and openly, that women of colour and trans women are particularly at risk.
I hope that the discussion continues in the Assembly and that we have the opportunity to debate further what more men can do to be better allies, which includes addressing and challenging the problematic behaviour of fellow men. I look forward to working with colleagues to address the issue further.

Clare Bailey: I, too, extend my sympathies to the family of Sarah Everard and to the families of the five women in Northern Ireland who, we know, have been murdered in their own homes since lockdown began.
Last Monday was International Women's Day. Yesterday was Mothering Sunday. The images being beamed across the world and across social media really show how we as a society respect and value women. Legislation is not enough. If it is not resourced, it is simply legislation. If it is not understood, it is simply legislation. Male violence against women is endemic in our society and is largely accepted.
My grandmother suffered the same as I would have. My mother suffered the same as I would have. I have grown up and suffered as every other women has. I am now teaching my daughter how to keep herself safe, how to report and how to stand up and be heard. I do not want my grandchildren to repeat the same behaviours. In the UK, 97% of sex crimes are committed by men, and 90% of murders are committed by men. It is time for men to step up and address why that is.
As an Assembly, we have much to do. We know that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, which carried out a full inquiry in the UK, including Northern Ireland, made a series of recommendations about how we need to step up, yet we have done nothing. The Gillen review made plenty of recommendations about how we can step up, yet we have done nothing. The pilot domestic violence courts showed us where we need to step up, yet we have done very little. The Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) recommended what we could do to step up, yet we have done nothing. Women's Aid, Nexus NI and the charity sector have all been dealing with the fallout, yet we continue to reduce their access to resources. We had an Executive gender strategy that did not even mention the word "woman".
We have much to do, so let us commit to being human rights-compliant and to stepping up to protect women at every opportunity. Today, let us commit to stop being gender-blind.

Gerry Carroll: I thank the Member for bringing the important Matter of the Day to the House. I offer my sympathies to Sarah Everard's family and friends following her tragic killing. It goes without saying that what happened last week was disgusting and should never happen to anybody: not to any woman in any circumstances. The fact that a woman can be attacked and killed while trying to get home reflects the danger that women are in in today's society.
I also offer my solidarity and sympathy to all the women who have spoken out in the last week as they have been impacted by this devastating and awful news. We have a problem with male violence towards women in our society. It needs to be stamped out and eradicated. Women should be able to walk, run, cycle or use public transport at any time of day or night without having to fear for their safety or their lives, as, tragically, so many do.
The tragedy puts a focus on the need for states and political systems to stop criminalising and targeting women and instead to put the resources into protecting and defending women. There has been a common thread throughout the COVID pandemic that, when people who are oppressed and want to peacefully and safely protest their disgust at injustice, they are met by the repression of police. That should be called out whether it is in London, Belfast or anywhere else. On Saturday, it was outrageous to see people who were standing against the murder of Sarah Everard and against violence against women being targeted in a dangerous and violent way by the Met Police. It is cruelly ironic that women who are not protected or safe when they are alone are then, when they are standing in unison, intimidated and arrested by the people who, they are told, are there to protect them.
It is disgraceful to hear the police say that the protests are unsafe when daily life for women is unsafe. Oppressed people, be they women or people who are subjected to or impacted by racism, have a right to organise and protest. Disgracefully, we are seeing an attack on that not only at the weekend in London but as the Tories try to ram through legislation that will criminalise protests. The Tories' disgraceful new legislation aims to ban protests that are noisy or disruptive. That is exactly what protests are and should be. They are places where people who are shut out of mainstream society have their say. They are designed to disrupt the normal running of things and to force those in power to rethink their positions and actions. Solidarity with those impacted by this awful murder. Let us redouble our efforts to fight for a world without sexism or misogyny.

Claire Sugden: I offer my condolences to the family and friends of Sarah Everard. My thoughts are also with every woman who has felt fear because she is vulnerable in a way that she should not be.
On Friday, I spoke out about the incident. I deliberately edited my comments, knowing that people would come back on me and say that this is not just about women. We need to face the fact that this is disproportionately about women. When we talk about violence against women, we should also look at violence against men. Do you know what the common factor is? Men tend to commit these crimes against both men and women. We need to call that out. I ask every man in the Chamber to stand up for this issue and recognise it for what it is. Of course we know that it is not all men. That is not the point. The point is that it is a disproportionate issue. I call on the Minister of Justice immediately to bring forward a strategy to address violence against women and girls; indeed, I call on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to do it, because it is a gendered issue, and that falls within the remit of their Department.
I was pleased to hear the First Minister talk about this last week. We really need to shine a light on it. Yes, I appreciate what people say about the need to protect ourselves, but we need to get to the root cause of the problem so that that does not need to be our first consideration. We need to understand why it happens, and we need to address it in that way.
I was triggered by some of the commentary at the weekend. I was really saddened when I thought that this would never change until we genuinely recognise where the issue is. I call on every man in the Assembly; I call on every man in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and every man across the world to recognise this for what it is. Women are disproportionately victims of this type of violence. Violence that happens against men is disproportionately perpetrated by men. We need to get on top of it now if we genuinely want to address the issue. Otherwise, we will have to edit our comments. Otherwise, even smaller parts of the issue do not get heard. It worries me that we are not focusing on the right issue. That is a really important message to come from the Assembly today and across the UK.

Sinéad Bradley: I too put on record my condolences to Sarah Everard's mother, family and friends. I simply cannot begin to imagine the pain that they must be going through at this time.
In addition to that, the appalling scenes that we all witnessed over the weekend in London cannot have offered any comfort to those people who are so deeply grieving.
In the context of Northern Ireland, I want to register my absolute disgust at the lack of support that we have been able to offer women, especially those women who were murdered during lockdown. Their families have been left grieving in an absolute void of silence, where there is nothing happening to support them.
During our hearings on the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Bill, we repeatedly heard quite distinctly about the different crime that is targeted towards women. Rightly, I accepted the argument that, at the very highest level of legislation, there was a need to be gender neutral, but that does not allow us to walk away from the responsibility that we have in this House to understand the gender crime that is targeted towards women, which is horrific and persistent.
It is one thing for us to stand here in unison and call for a strategy, but it must be fully understood and resourced, with all the training and back-up that is required. This is an ask about keeping women safe and keeping women alive.

Assembly Business

Committee Membership

Alex Maskey: As with other similar motions, this motion will be treated as a business motion and there will be no debate.
Resolved:
That Mr Gary Middleton replace Mrs Pam Cameron as a member of the Business Committee. — [Mr K Buchanan.]

Alex Maskey: Members may take their ease for a moment.
(Mr Principal Deputy Speaker [Mr Stalford] in the Chair)

Ministerial Statement

Public Expenditure: Additional Business Support Schemes

Christopher Stalford: I have received notice from the Minister of Finance that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members in the Chamber that in light of social distancing being observed by the parties, the Speaker's ruling that Members must be in the Chamber to hear a statement if they wish to ask a question has been relaxed. Members who are participating remotely must make sure that their name is on the speaking list if they wish to be called. Members who are present in the Chamber must also do that by way of rising in their place as well as notifying the Business Office or the Table directly. I remind Members to be concise in asking their questions. This is not an occasion for debate and long introductions will not be permitted. I also remind Members that, in accordance with long-established procedure, points of order are not normally taken during a statement or the question period after.

Conor Murphy: I wish to update the House on further schemes that my Department will deliver to provide financial support to businesses that have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. In my written statement of 25 February, I noted that if funding remained unallocated, my Department would bring forward contingency plans to ensure that the funding that is available is used. The Executive have now agreed to a number of financial support schemes for businesses, which my Department has brought forward. Those schemes will be implemented rapidly to make use of the remaining COVID funding within the current financial year.
I bring forward three schemes of financial assistance for business, worth £178 million. These schemes will provide a lifeline to over 19,600 businesses, as they continue to confront the challenges of COVID-19. The proposals will help some businesses that have not received any grant funding so far during the pandemic, as well as some businesses that have experienced a significant reduction in trade because of the recent restrictions but which cannot access one of the Executive’s current support schemes.
The first is a scheme that will provide a one-off grant of £50,000 for certain businesses that occupy premises with a net annual value (NAV) over £51,000 and are eligible for the 12-month rates holiday. Those businesses were not able to access grant funding during the first lockdown. Examples of the kinds of business that will benefit are shops, car showrooms, garden centres, gyms and fitness suites, equestrian centres and caravan parks. Businesses will have to apply for the grant. It is estimated that approximately 1,125 businesses will benefit, and the cost of this scheme is estimated at up to £56·3 million.
The second scheme will provide a one-off grant of £25,000 to industrial businesses operating from premises with a total net annual value between of £15,000 and £51,000. Again, those business received no financial support during 2020. Approximately 1,100 businesses will benefit, and the cost of the scheme is estimated at £27·9 million.
The third scheme will make an additional payment to businesses that received either the £10,000 small business grant or £25,000 grant for retail, hospitality, tourism and leisure in the first lockdown but have been unable to access financial support over the autumn or winter from one of the Executive’s current support schemes. Although those businesses have been permitted to continue trading during the most recent phase of restrictions, many have experienced significant reductions in their trade and revenues. Those who received the £10,000 grant last year will receive a further payment of £5,000, while those who received the £25,000 grant will receive a further payment of £10,000. It is estimated that almost 17,500 businesses will be eligible for this payment.
The schemes will be delivered by my Department. Using the exceptional circumstances powers under the Financial Assistance Act 2009, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister have designated my Department as the relevant Department to provide the assistance. My Department will urgently bring forward regulations for the schemes. I ask Members to note that payments can be issued only after the regulations are made.
These financial support schemes for businesses will be implemented rapidly to make use of the remaining COVID funding in the current financial year. Achieving that speed means that the risk of errors cannot be eliminated. There will, by necessity, be a trade-off between rapid delivery and quality assurance, but the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. In the absence of other Departments coming forward to spend this money, the choice facing me, as Finance Minister, was between using the available funding rapidly on these schemes, with the risks that that entails, or surrendering it to the Treasury. Having said that, I assure Members that lessons have been learned from the previous grant schemes and measures are being put in place to prevent previous errors from reoccurring. In particular, wind turbines and constituency offices, previously paid in error, will not receive the additional payments.
Given the time available, it has not been possible to undertake the detailed analysis and economic appraisal that would normally underpin schemes of this nature to inform a determination on value for money. My accounting officer has informed me that delivery of the scheme cannot be recommended without bringing her into conflict with her duties under 'Managing Public Money NI' and that, as such, she will require a ministerial direction to proceed.
As an Executive, we have been obliged to introduce severe restrictions on businesses as part of our efforts to control the pandemic. It is incumbent on the Executive to make maximum possible use of the resources available to them to mitigate the economic impacts. Therefore, I will provide a ministerial direction to implement the Executive’s decision.
The Executive continue to respond to the rapidly changing and highly challenging environment that COVID-19 places us in. The schemes that I have announced will contribute to our aims of supporting businesses and assisting with our economic and social recovery and will provide a welcome lifeline to many businesses that have been struggling with the impacts of the pandemic. In protecting businesses, many of which are small, locally owned companies, we protect their workers and the families that rely on the income that workers provide.
I commend this statement to the House.

Paul Frew: On behalf of the Committee for Finance, I thank the Minister for his statement and for meeting me this morning. That was much appreciated.
The health pandemic and, indeed, the economic and societal lockdown have been long and painful for individuals, families and businesses. Those new schemes, along with the extension of the business rates holiday, are good news, which will, I know, be welcomed by hard-pressed businesses up and down Northern Ireland. It is important to acknowledge the provision of support packages to some of the smaller sectors that felt left out of previous support packages. Hopefully, lessons were learned from errors there.
Will the Minister advise the House whether, after the roll-out of those schemes, he expects to have to return any money to Westminster for 2021? The Minister indicated that, owing to the compressed timescales, a value-for-money evaluation cannot be completed, thus ministerial direction is required for the schemes. When will the necessary value-for-money evaluation be undertaken and when will he revise the transparency process and publish all ministerial directions when they are given?

Conor Murphy: I do not expect to return any unspent money. There still remains, relatively speaking, a small amount of unspent COVID money, which, as the Member and Committee know, has to be spent out within this financial year. There are a number of allocations that I hope to bring to the Executive next week in order to finalise that, but that was to take up a significant proportion of that remaining funding.
Some Departments may return money even at this late stage; we always anticipate some return. However, there is a carry-over capacity in the normal circumstances of carrying over unallocated money, so we do not anticipate or intend to return any money to the Treasury. Trying to spend out at the end of the financial year is not the best way of conducting budgetary processes, but there is an opportunity through the scheme to provide support to businesses that previously did not get it.
This is one of a number of schemes that required ministerial direction from a range of Departments. Of course, we want to make sure that the background to those directions are published. We intend to improve transparency in all that, and we will get that out as quickly as we can.

Maolíosa McHugh: Go raibh míle maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle, agus ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghlacadh fosta leis an Aire as a ráiteas. Thank you, Minister, for your statement. I commend the Minister for the expediency that he has shown in bringing forward proposals. Constant demand was out there for all Departments to bring forward proposals, and the Minister assured us that, at the end of the day, if they did come forward, he would be in a position to respond.
Minister, has a time frame been established for when people can apply for the £50,000 grant, given that it is not paid automatically? Secondly, in the event of that time frame being established, how do you hope to communicate that to the public in order to ensure that the funds go to those who deserve them?

Christopher Stalford: Before I call the Minister, I remind Members of my remarks at the opening of the debate about having focused questions. I gave a little leeway to the Deputy Chair of the Committee, as I would have to Dr Aiken had he been here, but we should try to focus.

Conor Murphy: Yes, there is an application process for the larger figure. We cannot start making payments until the regulations are made, so we will be working closely with the Member and the other Finance Committee members in order to make that happen as quickly as possible.
Even though, as he correctly identified, we waited to give other Departments the opportunity to bid for some of the unspent COVID money, we were in the background developing contingency plans. We had to step in at the end to make sure that we could put some support out there. There will be an application process. Some of the other payments are automatic, but, for the larger payment, there is an application process. We will get that information out as quickly as we can, but we cannot pay out until the regulations are made.
We are confident that we will do this within this financial year and that the money will be allocated within this financial year, so spending will be approved on that basis.

Matthew O'Toole: Minister, I welcome the fact that that money will be spent rather than simply handed back to the Treasury, but it is clear that we are now, unfortunately, in the 'Brewster's Millions' phase of our budgetary process.
Money is being sent out without there being clear data on the sectors that most need it and the people who have not had support yet. Notwithstanding that, as I said, it is good that more support is happening. What specific research are his Department and the Economy Department doing to find out exactly what the impact of that money will be? That information will be critical to understanding where our economy is. At the minute, it seems as though we are flying blind with regard to what will greet the high street when it reopens in the weeks and months to come.

Conor Murphy: I do not think that the Member is correct about how the money is being given out. It is not an ideal way in which to do it, and we have always acknowledged that. Every Member has acknowledged that our budgetary system puts us in a position where we end up trying to spend our underspend at the end of the year. Obviously, the support will be valuable and welcome for an awful lot of businesses across the North, particularly as it is targeted to reach those that did not get support previously or during the autumn and winter and to give them some support as we move into the phase of reopening and economic recovery.
The process is underpinned by data. We had done analysis through the Ulster University, and we did that again. Any data on rates and on how businesses have been affected by the pandemic and on schemes that we ran previously has been put in to inform future rates decisions and make sure that some of the mistakes in previous schemes, including when businesses got support that they did not require, were weeded out. There is data. I accept that the schemes are not ideal, given that we are spending significant amounts, but I am sure that most people on the ground will pleased that we are allocating money to them, not sending it back to London.

John Stewart: I thank the Minister for his statement. It is, undoubtedly, good news for those businesses. The process will never be perfect when we have to work within the current time frame, but I acknowledge that that money will go out to them.
I want to raise two aspects, if I may. First, can the Minister clarify whether the extension of rate relief to retail businesses will also apply to close-contact services, including salons and hairdressers, given the impact that COVID has had on them? Secondly, we are waiting for information on the COVID restrictions business support scheme (CRBSS), which is run through Invest NI via the Department for the Economy, to see whether it will be extended past 1 April. The concern among businesses that have availed themselves of the scheme is that they are unsure whether it will be extended if restrictions continue. Can the Minister give some assurances that the scheme will continue?

Conor Murphy: The statement released last Thursday evening addressed the point about rate relief. Premises that availed themselves of rate relief during the eight months of the past financial year up to this point can avail themselves of it for the 12 months. That includes close-contact services.
On the Department for the Economy's scheme, I have made it clear that, as long as restrictions apply, the localised restrictions support scheme (LRSS) will continue to pay out. We have set aside contingency COVID money for the next financial year to do that. Obviously, the sooner we are out of restrictions and lockdown, the better it will be for everyone. While all those businesses very much welcome any support, all they want is to get back to trading; in essence, that is what they want to do. I have said to the Economy Minister that I believe that the scheme that she has run should continue as long as restrictions are in place. There is money there to support that, so I hope that it continues to run.

Andrew Muir: I thank the Minister for his statement. I particularly thank the Minister for the action for those with a net annual value of over £51,000. They have been banging their heads off a wall trying to get support for the past year. It is good to see that coming forward.
How can we ensure that value for money is associated with the £10,000 and £25,000 grants and with the £5,000 and £10,000 grants to businesses?  Will there be, for example, an honesty box to enable those who do not need the financial support to return it? From what I have read in the statement, it seems that there will be no application process associated with those grants.

Conor Murphy: Lessons from the previous experience have been applied. Certainly, some things that were designated as "businesses" did not require that support. There has been a deliberate approach to ensure that they are not included again. Those lessons have been learnt.
With regard to receipt of the grant, there is a notice to tell businesses that, if they wish to pay it back or are not entitled to receive it, they should pay it back. There are clear instructions on how to do so. With all the schemes, given the timescales that we are working in, the question is this: do we try to make them absolutely perfect and risk not getting the scheme done in time to spend that money in this financial year; or do we try not to make perfection the enemy of the good and get some support out where we can?
I would be surprised if there is not some slippage. We have to try to manage that and recoup that, as the Department has done in conjunction with the Department for the Economy with previous schemes, and we have to learn the lessons from those, as has happened with this scheme. I hope that we see fewer problems with this scheme than we did with previous ones.

Jonathan Buckley: I welcome the statement insofar as I agree with the Minister that it is a lifeline to many thousands of businesses that are struggling at this time. Sadly, despite the statement, some business sectors will still feel that they have been totally excluded throughout the entire COVID-19 pandemic. Minister, as you know, I approached you in person and through written communication about the plight faced across Northern Ireland by the owners of dog and other animal kennels, which have had no access to funding throughout the pandemic. What comfort can those industries take from today's statement?

Conor Murphy: The Member will know that, in the absence of other Departments bringing forward schemes to target support at and tailor support to certain business sectors, including the one that he mentioned, we are obliged to operate off the rates base. That is the only vehicle available to the Department of Finance. We are not a business support Department. That is not really our function. I certainly hope, once this scheme and rate relief for next year are done, that we will be out of that game and that responsibility will go back properly to the Department for the Economy and other Departments to continue to support businesses in the time ahead as we get into economic recovery mode. As I said, that is not a function of the Department of Finance, and I had to take additional powers to do the schemes so that we could get some support out.
Some people who look after animals may have rateable premises and some may not. We can devise schemes only around the rates base, so we are restricted in that regard. I recognise that people whose businesses rely on other people going on holidays, travelling or going off to do other things have not been able to do their normal business. We have tried to use these schemes to reach some businesses that have suffered from a lack of footfall this year, by which I mean businesses that were not required to close but that clearly could not trade to any level at all. We have done that through the rates scheme, but we are restricted in what we can do and in what sectors we can reach. I brought forward that scheme in the absence of other Departments bringing forward more specific schemes for other businesses.

Caoimhe Archibald: I thank the Minister for his statement. The money is going to some business sectors that have had no specific supports and that I and others have been highlighting for months. I am really glad to see the Minister put this support scheme in place, because I have been frustrated at the lack of further business supports being proposed by the Economy Minister, despite the need and despite the funding being available.
Minister, the previous business grant schemes last year — the £10,000 scheme and the £25,000 scheme — were jointly administered by the Department of Finance and the Department for the Economy. What role does the Department for the Economy play in these schemes?

Conor Murphy: We have engaged with that Department, because, as I say, we had to learn some lessons from the way in which schemes were rolled out last time. We have taken the power in that regard this year, and we asked the Executive Office to give us the power to do so. The Department for the Economy has said that it is busy with a range of other schemes that it is rolling out. That Department is moving more into economic recovery mode than continuing to pay out, so we have taken on the role of being responsible for this. We will work closely with the Department for the Economy to identify businesses that require support and businesses that perhaps should not have received support through the previous schemes, and we are trying to reach some of the businesses that, as you identify, we did not manage to support over the year.

Pat Catney: Thank you, Minister. I welcome the statement. I am still aware, however, of many businesses that have been refused support. In order to fill the funding gaps and better tailor future support schemes, is your Department reviewing the data from the sectors that are still impacted on by the pandemic but have not yet received support?

Conor Murphy: The Member will know, as a member of the Finance Committee, that there are parameters within which we can do schemes. We can really only use the rates base to identify businesses. I am sure that he has engaged with and knows of sectors that have not received support. I waited and encouraged people to bid and develop schemes to target businesses that had yet to receive support or did not receive sufficient support. I am sure that the Member has heard me say that on many occasions over the last number of months. At the end of the day, if bids do not come in, I can only allocate accordingly. In allocating through this scheme, we have hit some sectors that previously did not receive support. It will not include all the people that the Member has, correctly, identified, and I know that because I have engaged with many of those businesses. We do not have the wherewithal to reach all of them, and I am sorry about that. However, it is the responsibility of other Departments. As we move into the economic recovery phase, I hope that businesses that need more assistance to recover economically can be given more attention in the time ahead.

Philip McGuigan: Minister, I welcome the announcement today of £178 million of support for businesses. I also welcome your statement on Friday that announced a £230 million allocation for rate relief, and that will be welcome news to many businesses. The allocation means that businesses across many key sectors will have benefited from a rates holiday for two full years. Minister, can you detail the total amount of rate relief funding that has been provided to businesses since the start of the pandemic?

Conor Murphy: The Member will be aware that there was an initial four-month rates holiday for all businesses. On the back of some research and data gathered by the University of Ulster's economic policy unit, the support was tailored more closely to businesses that were going to suffer most as a consequence of the pandemic. In doing that, we took large food stores out of the scheme, and that policy proved to be correct because those stores returned rate relief money in England.
Between the four-month rates holiday that was extended for a further eight months and this scheme, there will be rates support for two years. Some people will have a complete two-year period without paying any rates, which is a huge benefit to a lot of businesses. This scheme takes rate support to over £0·5 billion.

Jemma Dolan: Minister, thank you for your statement. The announcement of the £25K support grant for manufacturers will be warmly received by that sector, particularly as manufacturers were not included in previous grant support schemes. How many manufacturers will benefit from this support grant?

Conor Murphy: In the statement, I said that over 1,000 manufacturers will benefit. It applies to businesses that operate from industrial derated premises with an NAV between £15,000 and £51,000. As you say, the manufacturers were not covered by the business support grants paid last year. However, LPS can readily identify those businesses, having recently extended the 12-month rates holiday, and that was a late add-on to the 12-month rates holiday last year for the manufacturing sector. Those payments will be made automatically without the need for an application. From my original statement, the figure was 1,100 businesses.

Robbie Butler: I thank the Minister for his announcement. A number of businesses missed out last year because of the complexity of the rating system, as a portion of their rates was determined as industrial derated or small business rates relief. Will those businesses be picked up by the grants this time around?

Conor Murphy: Yes, if the businesses meet the established criteria. If any business owner is in doubt about the criteria, nibusinessinfo.co.uk is the place to go, even though the regulations need to be made before the Department can pay out. However, people can get early information to see how they fit into the scheme. Of course, as I said in my previous answer, we did revisit the previous scheme and included the small and medium manufacturing base later in the year and backdated the rates holiday for that sector. Some of those that are eligible will come under this scheme, but if anyone is in any doubt, they can visit the nibusinessinfo website to get a clear picture of the businesses that are included.

Stewart Dickson: Minister, somewhat uncomfortably, you have had to acknowledge in your statement that you had to proceed under a ministerial direction and your chief accounting officer had to point that out. Do you agree that you have, unfortunately, had to deploy a rather blunt instrument to distribute these funds at the end of the financial year? Would the grant scheme not have been done better, throughout the whole year, with better strategic planning with other Departments? What action will you take for the next financial year to ensure that actions are more strategic and more in cooperation with other Departments?

Conor Murphy: The Member is correct. However, as I said in my statement, I had the choice, as Finance Minister, between returning unspent money to Treasury — people have identified many sectors here that have not yet received any support — or giving it out and giving direction to the accounting officer in my Department to do that. Of course, that is not the ideal way to do any of that.
We received money late on. We were told last summer that what we received was the guaranteed Barnett outcome for the year, but that was added to at least another three, and possibly four, times. Doing it that way has not been ideal. The money has been very welcome, and a lot of Departments have stepped up admirably to deliver support where they could. There is a huge amount of extra money. Including the money given to the health service, we will have spent an additional £3·3 billion this year.
Next year, we will want to improve. We have a sense of the amount of funding that we will have available next year. We have already identified rates support so that we could make an early announcement about a 12-month rates holiday for people next year. We also have an economic recovery plan that the Department for the Economy has brought forward, and we have identified money for that. We have also identified money for Health and Education and for social support. A number of things have been identified.
If we get additional money throughout the year, we will probably be in the same scenario of trying to find ways to spend it. We are trying to identify, as far as possible, the amount of extra money that we will have next year, which I think is about £900 million. That has improved from the Chancellor's Budget statement last week. We were originally looking at £0·5 billion, so you can see that that has changed already. We will try to identify it and spend it more strategically. If other money comes throughout the year, we will have to fit it into the strategic plans as best as we can.

Martina Anderson: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas. I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, on behalf of the near thousand businesses in Derry, I want to thank you for the grant support that they have received. It has been a lifeline. The owners of the businesses that previously received £10,000 will deeply appreciate what they heard. Will you give more details to the owners of those businesses that were not eligible before for any of the grant schemes but who will now be eligible? They would deeply appreciate getting more information.

Conor Murphy: The north-west — Derry city and Strabane — was the first area to go into lockdown when the localised restrictions began last autumn. In that regard, businesses there have been in lockdown restrictions longer than anyone else. Some larger businesses were not included in previous grant schemes, including shops, car showrooms, garden centres, gyms, fitness suites, equestrian centres and caravan parks. I am not sure how many equestrian centres there are in Derry city, but I am sure that a number of businesses will be able to avail themselves of that funding.
We know that LRSS has been paying out in a substantial way and at about double the amount that businesses in England have been able to avail themselves of. On average, people at the lower end of the LRSS grant will have received about £10,000 or £11,000 during the restrictions, and some of the larger businesses in the larger payment schemes will have received up to almost £40,000. The purpose of today's announcement is to give some assistance to businesses that have not received that support. Some of them were not obliged to close down, but, in effect, lost all their footfall. Businesses in the city centre in Derry have suffered from a drop in footfall, even though, as essential businesses, they were able to remain open. They will welcome the support that the grant provides.

Justin McNulty: I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he provide clarity on a couple of points? Will he tell me about applications where a business has multiple properties and where there may be multiple applications? What does he advise in that instance? Will he also consider widening the scope of the localised restrictions support scheme to ensure that sports clubs, such as GAA and social clubs, are not left behind?

Conor Murphy: I would very much have liked to address businesses with multiple premises as part of this statement. However, the Department for the Economy is involved in an ongoing legal case on a previous scheme that involved the paying out of money to multiple premises. We were not able to include multiple premises because that legal action is ongoing, and to take any action contrary to that would cut across that case.
The Member has asked the question about payments to clubs many times and has been given the same answer many times.
The GAA's Ulster Council was involved in designing the very programme to support GAA clubs. That was the programme that it encouraged all its clubs to go for. It was involved in the co-design of that programme, as were the Irish Football Association (IFA), Ulster Rugby and all those other sectors.

Justin McNulty: [Interruption.]

Christopher Stalford: The Minister must be allowed to answer without interruption.

Conor Murphy: The Member is mumbling away. I cannot quite pick him up.
The sports clubs and their sporting authorities worked with the Department for Communities to devise a scheme to provide support for them. The Member keeps asking me to put them into a scheme that was not designed for them. It may have paid out more frequently and may have paid out more money, but it was done on the basis of what those sporting organisation bodies did. They devised and co-designed the scheme for their clubs and have encouraged their clubs to avail themselves of that scheme, and that is the one that is for them. The Member keeps trying to fit a square peg into a round hole here no matter how many times I give him the same answer, but I hope that the penny will drop eventually.

Rachel Woods: I thank the Minister for his statement. So many businesses and people have been unfairly excluded, so I welcome the support that they have been given.
The Minister refers to lessons learnt from the previous scheme. Is there any legal basis for recalling grants that may have been given in error?
Will the Minister outline whether dry-cleaners will be eligible for the third scheme that he announced, as they have had to take loans over the last year?

Conor Murphy: In answer to the last question, we are trying to target the businesses that were not obliged to close because they were considered essential. However, in effect, some dry-cleaners managed to get support because they were considered to be part of the supply chain for the tourism industry. People who worked with hotels and restaurants and so forth have managed to get some support from the Department for the Economy, but others clearly have not, so it is about trying to provide some support.
On the legal side, the Department for the Economy was responsible, working with Land and Property Services (LPS), for trying to get back any money from people who were paid incorrectly. I am not sure of the legal enforcement powers that it has in that regard, but I can find that out and give the Member some update on it.

Jim Allister: I would like clarification of an earlier answer about the first scheme and the £50,000. That is rates-based per premises, but the Minister seems to be saying that an independent retailer who has multiple premises or more than one, for example, will get only the one £50,000. That group has already been discriminated against in previous grants. Is he really saying that, on a rates-based qualification, you will just pick and choose between which premises will qualify because a particular business might have more than one premises? Surely, that is grossly unfair. Does the same apply to the third scheme? In the third scheme, how are there 17,500 businesses? Have we really had 17,500 businesses permitted to continue to trade?

Conor Murphy: With regard to the first scheme, as I said in response to a previous question, I would have liked to be able to pay multiple premises because I recognise that that is a situation where, you could argue, there is an unfairness. In Scotland and possibly in Wales, they have developed a scheme where they have a reducing scale going from one premises down. If somebody had 25 premises and was getting five £25,000 grants, that would be a substantial amount of money, but there could be a sliding scale down to a number of premises. The Department for the Economy is involved in legal proceedings, and we were not able to cut across those by devising a scheme that contradicted that legal action in relation to previous schemes. While I would have liked to pay and find some formula to address multiple premises, that was not possible.
We all know that small businesses that have been open in tourism facilities and in train stations have suffered from a huge lack of footfall and that small convenience kiosks and the like have been open and have not really received any footfall. Businesses in Belfast city centre that rely on office traffic were not obliged to close and were not entitled to LRSS, but, in effect, they were closed. The figures have been provided from the rates base. If the Member has a particular question on that, I am sure that I will hear from him, and I will ask LPS to give him some sense of where those businesses are and how it identified that number.

Gerry Carroll: I thank the Minister for his statement. My question relates to the fact that there are still issues with smaller companies not getting access to business support grants while bigger companies get grants when they do not need them. There are small businesses in my constituency that, despite meeting the criteria for support during the first round of funding and doing everything that they had to do — applying and appealing multiple times — got no support at a time when MLAs’ offices were given financial support and assistance. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that those businesses, which were eligible but did not get any support, will get it? If he needs it, I am happy to provide him with further detail on that.

Conor Murphy: If the Member has specifics on businesses in West Belfast that have not received funding, I am happy to receive that information. I assume that he is referring to the LRSS. More than 98% of those cases are now resolved, albeit that some were told that they were not eligible. There will be businesses that are not eligible to apply, but, if someone has looked at the criteria and feels that they are entitled to support, there are appeal mechanisms for that. I am happy for the Member to forward any details to me so that I can make sure that that is addressed.

Christopher Stalford: Thank you, Members. That concludes questions on the Minister of Finance's statement. I ask that Members take their ease before we move to the next item of business. If you are leaving the Chamber, Members, do not forget to wipe down the area where you were sitting and to adhere to social-distancing regulations. Thank you.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Private Members' Business

Severe Fetal Impairment Abortion (Amendment) Bill: Second Stage

Alex Maskey: Members, I wish to make a few remarks before we proceed to the Bill. I remind Members of our standards of debate: good temper, moderation, courtesy and respect. I raise that because I did not think that some elements of the discussion last week on the Standing Order 34 motion provided, in all aspects, the best start to consideration of the Bill. We are discussing an issue on which, as we all know, there are strong and deeply felt opinions. Members will have the ability to express those views, and there is absolutely no problem with that. Members will be aware that the issues that we are talking about today are highly emotive and that how the matters are discussed can exacerbate the experiences of people on any side of the argument that we are addressing. I therefore appeal to Members to be mindful of not just those in the Chamber but all those who may be watching the debate and have been affected by the issues. I appeal to Members to be mindful of their language and their tone. If Members follow that guidance, there will be no need for the Chair to intervene. It is particularly essential that Members respect the right of others with a differing view, no matter which side of the House they come from, to be heard. I personally think that how this debate is addressed sets a marker for the integrity of the Assembly. This is a serious and sensitive debate, and Members should approach it in that manner. I am confident that I can look to the sponsor of the Bill to set the tone for the debate, so thank you.

Paul Givan: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Severe Fetal Impairment Abortion (Amendment) Bill [NIA Bill 15/17-22] be agreed.

Alex Maskey: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated any time limit to the debate.

Paul Givan: I am delighted to bring the Severe Fetal Impairment Abortion (Amendment) Bill before the Assembly today. The Bill tackles disability discrimination and how the law perpetuates stereotypes. No one expresses that better than Heidi Crowter, and I express my sincere gratitude to her as she tirelessly fights for the rights of those with disabilities. I think that we all agree that she is an incredible and passionate young woman, whose contribution to our society is immeasurable. It was in May last year that Heidi called on the Assembly to make it clear that we did not accept the abortion regulations that Westminster had imposed on us, which make it legal to abort on the basis of non-fatal disabilities right up to birth, while affording non-disabled babies a far higher degree of protection. My party responded to Heidi's intervention when we tabled the motion:
"That this Assembly welcomes the important intervention of disability campaigner Heidi Crowter and rejects the imposition of abortion legislation that extends to all non-fatal disabilities, including Down's syndrome."
That motion passed by a simple majority. Sinn Féin, at the time, tabled an amendment to the motion to make it clear that it did not wish to reject the regulations in any respect other than their imposition of abortion on the basis of non-fatal disability up to birth. The impact of its amendment on the DUP motion would have meant that it read:
"That this Assembly welcomes the important intervention of disability campaigner Heidi Crowter and rejects the specific legislative provision in the abortion legislation that goes beyond fatal foetal abnormalities to include non-fatal disabilities, including Down's syndrome."
Thus, in the space of two votes on 2 June, 75 out of 90 MLAs voted to make it clear that they did not support the regulations to the extent that they made provision for abortion on the basis of non-fatal fetal abnormality. The Bill before us today is very much the outcome of that process.
The Bill has one clause of substance, which gives expression to the determination of an overwhelming majority of Members, representative of our whole community, to reject the provision of abortion on the basis of non-fatal disability. At this stage, let me put on record my thanks to colleagues in other political parties who support the Bill on that basis: Robbie Butler MLA, Dolores Kelly MLA and Trevor Lunn MLA. All three have publicly endorsed the Bill, and I pay tribute to them for doing so.
The Bill makes it clear that there is no place for disability discrimination in Northern Ireland in 2021. Regulation 7(1)(b) of the abortion regulations permits abortion up to term in cases of non-fatal disability for conditions such as Down's syndrome, cleft palate and club foot, something that is not permitted in relation to preborn babies of the same gestation who do not have a disability. It thereby perpetuates the myth that people with non-fatal disabilities such as Down's syndrome have less to contribute or are expendable. That sends out the message loud and clear, as Heidi has eloquently demonstrated, that the lives of people with disabilities are less valuable and less worthy of protection than the lives of people without disabilities. A law that fosters that thinking in 2021 is completely unacceptable.
Last June, I described regulation 7(1)(b) as being years out of date and:
" a regressive and backwards step in the campaign against discrimination and equality for people with disabilities." — [Official Report (Hansard), 2 June 2020, p77, col 2].
That is why I have introduced the Bill, which, through clause 1, deletes regulation 7(1)(b). The purpose of the Bill is to tackle the disability discrimination that is so obvious in our current abortion regulations and right a wrong that the Assembly acknowledged in June last year.
There is no way that you can allow abortion on the basis of a severe fetal impairment such as Down's syndrome without perpetuating stereotypes about people with disabilities. It is desperately sad that it is perceived that the birth of a child with Down's syndrome or another non-fatal disability is something to be avoided. That does not reflect how people with Down's syndrome see the world, and nor does it reflect the particular joy that individuals like Heidi bring to their communities.
Let me tell you some different stories. Let me tell you about Lily, who has Down's syndrome. Her parents say:
"The last 20 months have been the hardest, most challenging time of our lives. They have also been the best, most rewarding, loving, funny, busy, amazing time of our lives."
Let me tell you about Daisy, who has spina bifida. Her parents say:
"she’s just perfect and we can’t imagine life without her. She lights up any room we enter and is our absolute hero."
Let me tell you about Kirsty, who also has spina bifida. She says:
"My mam was told I'd never go to a mainstream school nor walk. I have achieved both and now I am in university."
Kirsty now has a baby boy of her own. Let me tell you about Clara. He mum says and says honestly:
"hearing that your unborn baby would have a special need was very, very frightening."
However, she also says:
“[t]he love we have for Clara is immense, she is her own little character, she’s funny, happy, mischievous, and knows what she wants!”
Let me tell you about Aiden. His parents say:
“[w]e feel so lucky to have Aiden in our lives and can’t imagine a world without him. Aiden is Aiden, Down Syndrome does not define who he is.”
Those individuals bring such richness into our community and society, and I do not want to have or to imagine a world without such individuals.
If we do not repeal regulation 7(1)(b), however well intentioned our decision may be, the message that we will send to those with non-fatal disabilities is clear. I do not want to be part of a society that describes such children as a "diagnosis" or a "risk", and nor do I want to be part of a society that communicates the worth of a person’s life on the basis of their perceived ability. That is not what we intend, but, sadly, the lived experiences of individuals tell us that that is the legacy that screening with a view to termination can leave. Too many women have spoken of the pressure that they felt to terminate, and individuals and families have spoken of the attitudes that persist. Our Assembly should not tolerate that.
After years of campaigning for equality and the eradication of disability discrimination, we must not permit the existence of laws such as regulation 7(1)(b). The similar provision in Great Britain was introduced to the Abortion Act in 1990. That was more than 30 years ago. It is hopelessly out of date and is, of course, being challenged by Heidi Crowter in the High Court.
One of the issues that have been raised with the Bill is the perception of the struggle that parents may face as they navigate the challenges associated with disability. Might we recognise that part of the struggle that parents may face is not about their child but about our misconceptions? One of the things that can make life harder for parents of a child with Down’s syndrome is the belief that a particular health condition or delay is normal for those who have Down's syndrome. Those assumptions can lead to a failure to diagnose accurately or to provide timely and needed medical care. That is called diagnostic overshadowing.
In 1900, the normal life expectancy for a child with Down's syndrome was just nine years old; now, people with Down's syndrome live into their 50s and 60s. That shows that what is normal depends massively on environment and standards of care. The Bill is about tackling the attitudes and myths that lead to failures to provide high-quality support and care. The Bill is about ensuring that attitudes towards disability are not based on fear.
The support from many people in the medical profession for the Bill speaks volumes for the positive attitude within our health service to providing the best care for families and preborn children. Members will just have received an email, and the number cited in that continues to rise. Almost 200 doctors have now challenged the inaccuracies contained in the briefing paper circulated to Members last week by the political adviser of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in London. Those doctors are calling for MLAs to support the Bill. That includes doctors and consultants in Northern Ireland who practise in obstetrics and gynaecology, sexual and reproductive healthcare, palliative medicine, psychiatry, general surgery, emergency medicine and general practice, to name but some areas. Let me quote Dr Claire Sinton, a paediatrician working in the Royal Belfast Hospital:
"As a paediatrician I have cared for many babies and children with disabilities. The lives of these children are no less valuable or meaningful because of their differing levels of mental or physical ability. To offer additional access to abortion for babies diagnosed antenatally with non fatal abnormalities sends a clear signal that we, as a society, place less value on the life of a disabled individual. I feel strongly that to be human is to have intrinsic value, regardless of gender, race or ability. I oppose a law that seeks to single out disabled babies as being less worthy of protection or even the opportunity to live."
John Wyatt is emeritus professor of neonatal paediatrics at University College London. He says:
"As a doctor who has cared for many newborn babies and older children with disabilities I strongly support this Bill. It is absolutely right that the law recognises that an unborn baby with a non-fatal disability deserves the same protection as an unborn baby without a disability. We should be a society which welcomes and celebrates the lives of children with disabilities rather than exposing them to the threat of abortion."
We are richer for the presence and contribution of individuals like Heidi in our society. I think about my great uncle Samuel. I have enjoyed listening to the many stories about him. He had the condition Down's syndrome, but he has made a profound impact on my family, and his legacy lives on.
In 2011, the 'American Journal of Medical Genetics' published a series of articles about Down's syndrome. One of those covered a study of people with Down's syndrome who were older than 12 on information that could be shared with new and expectant parents of children with Down's syndrome:
"Among those surveyed, nearly 99% of people with DS indicated that they were happy with their lives, 97% liked who they are, and 96% liked how they look. Nearly 99% people with DS expressed love for their families, and 97% liked their brothers and sisters."
Another article surveyed the views of siblings:
"96% of brothers/sisters that responded to the survey indicated that they had affection toward their sibling with DS; and 94% of older siblings expressed feelings of pride".
Seventy-nine per cent of parents said that their outlook on life was more positive because of their child. Does that not show that those individuals have value and contribute? What value do you want Northern Ireland society to place on those individuals?
Allow me to talk about real people rather than statistics. Edwin and Karen Wilson from County Fermanagh, whose daughter Hannah has Down's syndrome, describe their parenting journey as:
“a roller-coaster of emotions, from elation at attained milestones, to frustrations at well-meaning bureaucracy. We always believed that Hannah’s greatest hurdle in life, would be other people’s attitudes and this has proven to be correct. As a family, we are adamant that we would not change anything about Hannah. God has entrusted us with a unique young lady, who has so much to give society, her warmth, compassion and generosity of spirit are qualities we all need more of, and we thank God for the blessing that Hannah is to us”.
I firmly believe that we should not accommodate laws that contribute to a negative attitude towards those with disabilities. We should ensure that legislation affords them the same level of protection as that afforded to babies without a disability. Let us think about the message that we are sending to such parents as Edwin and Karen, or parents who have just received the news of a Down's syndrome condition, or another non-fatal disability. As Belfast mother Laura Denny, whose son Nathan has Down's syndrome, so aptly reminded us:
"It wasn’t until my son Nathan was in my arms that I realised I had a baby and not just a diagnosis".
This is our opportunity to ensure that babies such as Nathan receive the protection that they deserve. It is tragic that, in 2018, a survey conducted in Great Britain revealed that, of parents who received an antenatal diagnosis of Down's syndrome, 69% were offered a termination on receiving news of the diagnosis. After advising that they were continuing with the pregnancy, 46% of women were asked again if they wished to terminate. It was only at the beginning of this year that St George's University Hospitals and various charities developed an alternative care pathway for an antenatal diagnosis of Down's syndrome that is not simply an offer of an abortion in Great Britain. We want an alternative pathway for families in Northern Ireland.
I commend my Bill to the House, and I urge Members to join me in sending a clear and unequivocal message that, in Northern Ireland, people with disabilities are equally valued.

Deirdre Hargey: I am speaking in a private capacity from the Back Bench as a Sinn Féin MLA. It is clear that this debate is an attempt by the DUP to distract from the fact that women are still being denied the compassionate healthcare services that were promised with the introduction of legislation over a year ago. One year on, women are still being failed. Whilst there is deliberate blocking of attempts emanating from the legislation to commission modern and compassionate healthcare services for women, the DUP is also intent on unpicking the legislation. We must not allow the debate to detract from the fact that women are still being denied services. Women are still being denied care. Women are still being forced to travel to England, which is inhumane and traumatic, especially in the midst of a global health pandemic. That is not compassionate healthcare for women.
The DUP has talked about rights, yet it is the DUP, aided by others, who have consistently opposed the extension of rights to people in society. This Bill is a crude attempt to pit vulnerable women and couples against people with disabilities. It is a crude attempt to roll back on the legislation that is in line with international human rights requirements.
In spite of the law being enacted to advance women's healthcare, it has not been implemented by the Health Department or the Minister. In my capacity as the Minister who has responsibility for taking forward the strategy on gender equality, I will be raising the issue at this week's Executive meeting and calling on the Minister to commission the services without further delay. If the DUP is seriously telling us that it cares about rights, will it support my proposal for an urgent commissioning of the services without further delay? Will the DUP address the long-standing human rights gaps that still exist, the tackling of which were committed to in the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent agreements? Or, will it continue to block the rights and services, forcing women to travel?
The current position disproportionately impacts women who suffer from socio-economic disadvantage, thus compounding their hardship and further denying their rights. That cannot continue. Sinn Féin's priority is about ensuring that women receive compassionate healthcare, which they are entitled to under the law and have been for over a year. Those services must be commissioned now.

Jim Allister: Will the Member give way?

Deirdre Hargey: I am finished.

Sinéad Bradley: I begin by thanking the Member for Lagan Valley Mr Givan for bringing this Bill to the Floor of the House. In preparation for today's sensitive debate, I listened to the Health Committee discussion and wish to note the informative and very helpful contributions of Lynn Murray from Don't Screen Us Out and, I have to say, the mightily impressive campaigner Heidi Crowter and her mum, Liz. Thank you. I will take a moment, if you do not mind, Mr Speaker, to congratulate Heidi and her husband on their marriage.
Heidi, in her presentation to the Committee, said that the law tells her and people with Down's syndrome that they are worth less than those without disabilities. Sadly, Heidi is correct. The law, as it stands, does just that. Furthermore, the legislation that was imposed on us from Westminster gave no consideration to the lack of support that should accompany women through any pregnancy. How can we have arrived at a point where we debate the rights and the wrongs of abortion up to birth when there has never been a concerted effort to address the absence of the critical support needed by women who feel that they are in crisis? Where is their support?
On 19 January this year, the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) identified that more investment and training is needed to enable midwives and maternity support workers to offer better mental health support for women throughout pregnancy and postnatally. It reported that as many as a fifth of new and expectant mothers are likely to experience some form of mental health problems and that at least half of women cannot access the help and support that they need. The RCM says that there are barriers such as women fearing that they may be judged as being unable to look after their baby or not recognising that they need help. Poor service provision is also a factor. That must be addressed so that women can get the support that they often desperately need. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Westminster did not choose to deliver on this for the women of Northern Ireland. Abortion has been offered as the solution.
Turning to the technical part of the Bill, the current legislation offers some safeguards for some children at 24 weeks. Regulation 7(1)(b), however, denies those safeguards to children who have physical or mental impairment. It specifically profiles the child on the grounds of disability and sets them apart as not deserving equal treatment due to their disability. In the absence of those safeguards, the profiled disabled child, unlike the child with no known disability, can be aborted at any stage. We could debate, and courts might engage in determining what the definition of "seriously disabled" might mean, and we might never agree, but to dwell on that detail today, in my view, is to miss the point of the Bill.
The crux of the matter is that current legislation profiles and separates children based on their having or not having a disability. Surely, that is the very definition of discrimination, discrimination that is, unless we change it, legislated for and delivered in a calculated and targeted way. We cannot claim to be supporters of the Disability Discrimination Act yet ignore this blatant breach of the principles in the current abortion regulations. To my many constituents who have shared emails with me in the lead-up to this Bill, I thank you. I thank you for the personal content that they contained and the show of affection and love, where they recognise the disabled person in their family and the love that they bring to that family.
I wish to put on record today that I choose to see your ability, not your disability. I will therefore support the Severe Fetal Impairment Abortion (Amendment) Bill.

Rosemary Barton: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to express my wholehearted support for the Bill today. I add my voice to those who have commended the work of the disability campaigner Heidi Crowter and a number of others, including Edwin and Karen Wilson from my constituency, who have bravely spoken about the impact of discriminatory abortion laws on their lives. What a joy Hannah is to the Wilson family.
For anyone who remains unconvinced about the disability discrimination problem that the legislation has been designed to address, imagine, if you will, that you or your partner are just three weeks shy of the long-anticipated arrival of a much-wanted child. I appreciate that, for some of us, that may be more of a distant stretch into our past than for others. Imagine that heady mixture of excitement and not a little fear as you prepare for life as you know it to be turned upside down. Imagine the checklist of the preparations that are to be made running through your mind. Now imagine sitting with the nurse at the maternity unit, and these questions then come: "Are you sure? Do you know that we still terminate up to term in cases like this?" How do you think that it would feel for that woman and her family to realise that the maternity team that will care for her during those very vulnerable moments is contemplating, just weeks prior to birth, the possibility of a termination? How confident do you think that she and her family will be that their child will be given the best possible chance at life and the highest standard of care?
Sadly, we know that some women and families do not have to imagine. Women in England and Wales have sat with the clinicians involved in their antenatal care and, just weeks before their due date, have been forced to consider their pregnancy ending with the intentional death of their much-wanted child. Cheryl Bilsborrow is one of those women. She said:
"at 38 weeks, when I went for a scan, the sonographer said: 'You do know we abort babies full term with Down's syndrome.'

Shocked, I replied, 'I'll pretend I didn't hear that.'"
She was offered an abortion just three days prior to giving birth to her little boy Hector.
For quite some time now, in those jurisdictions, termination of pregnancy has been the only pathway for unborn children with an antenatal diagnosis of Down's syndrome. Therefore, it is unsurprising that those are the questions that clinicians regularly ask. How do we expect those women to feel reassured about their baby when the default pathway for their antenatal care is the deliberate ending of life? One woman, Emma Mellor, described her experience by stating:
"At 38 weeks they made it really, really, really clear, that if I changed my mind on the morning of the induction to let them know, because it wasn't too late".
She was offered 15 terminations. Many women have shared similar stories. In January of this year, St George's University Hospitals in London, working with two leading Down's syndrome charities, introduced at a regional level an evidence-based best-practice pathway for the care of women whose babies are diagnosed with Down's syndrome prenatally. That is the first pathway to be introduced in an NHS trust anywhere in the UK. It is an indictment of our culture and laws that it is groundbreaking in 2021.
Let us not think that the impact of those discriminatory laws stops at birth. Dr Elizabeth Corcoran, from the Down's Syndrome Research Foundation, said:
"Research into the health issues affecting people with Down's syndrome has been hampered and blocked by the ingrained belief that the only way to help the Down's syndrome community is to reduce their numbers. Millions (of pounds) in funding has been poured into running and refining the screening process whilst only £5·33 per person per year is spent on research that could improve the lives of people with Down's syndrome."
That mindset has no place in the 21st century, nor is that a culture that we want to tolerate here. The Bill that we are debating today sends a very clear message that people with Down's syndrome or any other disability are equally valued members of our society, as the friends and families of those with Down's syndrome will testify.
I will close by reminding Members of the comment by the special rapporteur on the rights of persons with disability. The rapporteur said of the UN Convention on the same:
"Article 10 recognizes and protects the right to life of persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others, which is critical for contesting legislation, policies and practices whereby the lives of persons with disabilities have been put at risk because of perceived low quality of life. The right to life includes the right to survive and develop on equal basis with others. Disability cannot be a justification for termination of life."
Today, we have an opportunity to uphold that right and to celebrate children like Tess and courageous women like Heidi by removing from our laws a provision that perpetuates discrimination. I implore Members to vote for the Bill.

Paula Bradshaw: I recognise that this is, in broad terms, a matter of conscience. I am reserving my position on the general issue until I have further guidance on the legal and human rights aspects of the Bill, specifically its legal compatibility, its human rights compliance and, most notably, whether legislation is, in fact, the most appropriate way to deliver the outcome sought. By outcome, I mean, essentially, the outcome desired by the Don't Screen Us Out campaign, which wishes to ensure that people with Down's syndrome are and feel equally valued.
While I reserve my position on the issue, I cannot do so on the Bill. As presented, it is utterly inadequate. Leaving aside its obvious incompatibility with primary legislation at Westminster, as contained in section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, it has been presented without consideration of the human rights implications, with no thought given to the practical outcomes or unintended consequences and with no clarity on what its actual effect would be. At best, it is a lazy attempt to play off rights against each other as part of what is, in fact, fundamentally, an attempt to incrementally reverse abortion liberalisation.
It is clear from what we have heard in the Health Committee that the proposer has approached this process without any serious engagement with the key people or on the key issues. Are we content to pass a Bill, the main effect of which will be to force women to take action, rather than our supporting them? Regardless of our position on the issue, we may be sure, because it breaches the requirements of that primary legislation from Westminster, that, if we pass the Bill simply as it is, it will be reversed in the courts as it breaches the Westminster legislation that puts into law the UK's human rights obligations.

Christopher Stalford: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Paula Bradshaw: No, I will not take a point of order.

Jim Wells: You have to take a point of order; you have no choice. Sit down. You have no choice.

Christopher Stalford: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It seems to me that the Member for my constituency is veering dangerously close to questioning the decisions of the Speaker's office.
You, sir, determine whether items of legislation come before the Assembly. Can you speak to that?

Alex Maskey: The Bill has passed all the admissibility tests, as you are aware, and that is why we are having the debate. The fact that the Bill is on the Floor for debate tells its own story: it has passed the admissibility tests. I make the Member aware of that. After the Bill has concluded its passage through the Assembly, whatever happens in other places will happen.

Paula Bradshaw: I apologise, Mr Speaker: I misheard. I thought that the Member was asking for an intervention. I was not questioning your authority over points of order.
The point that I was making is that it is highly likely that this will end up in the Supreme Court, where it will be reversed.
If we are genuine —
[Interruption.]
Excuse me, please. I did not interrupt anybody else.

Alex Maskey: Order, please.

Paula Bradshaw: If we are genuine about the disability rights issues that have been legitimately raised by Heidi Crowter and others, the Bill, on those grounds alone, will clearly not deliver.
To be clear about my position, which others intentionally misrepresent, I am keen to explore whether we may be able to do something arising out of the debate along the lines of much of what the Don't Screen Us Out campaign is requests. I will take the opportunity later to put on record some of the issues that we need to consider urgently in that regard. A priority among them is support for mothers taking pregnancy to term. That is something that the Bill does absolutely nothing about. That is because the Bill is not really about disability discrimination. If it were, it would surely take a different form. There is no trace at all of any serious attempt to gather evidence. The Bill is really about the ongoing denial of women's rights. It sets out to pit disability rights against women's rights in a divisive manner rather than to recognise that they are parts of the same human rights standards.
It has been a long struggle for women to get the same right to choose as has existed in the rest of the UK for half a century. Of course, certain parties fought that every step of the way and continue to do so; indeed, had they not played a part in bringing down the Executive, it is likely that parties in the Assembly would still be working to deny women full or even any bodily autonomy. Even though I do not like how it was done — I believe in devolution — one of the few advantages of having had the Assembly in cold storage for three years is that a historical wrong was put right.
The Bill is about chipping away at the newly won right for women to choose. If it were to pass, no one should doubt that that is how it would be presented. That refusal to trust women and, indeed, specialist medical professionals is not restricted to one party by any means. We see an ongoing refusal by the Health Minister to commission services, as required by law. That is not the only failure on women's reproductive rights. We have also seen, for example, failures to ensure access to IVF on the same basis as in the rest of the UK. It is a pity that, over the decades, unionists were so unconcerned about an Irish Sea border when it came to women's rights.
Let me move on to abortion principles. It is worth emphasising that we also have to judge the Bill on its content. There, it becomes rather interesting. The Bill accepts the abortion law as it appears in the regulations that it seeks to amend. Far from seeking to abandon all those regulations or even to amend most of them, it leaves almost all of them completely untouched. I hear claims that this is not about pro-life and pro-choice, but let us be clear: passing the Bill will be claimed by some who are pro-life as a victory. It will, however, merely reinforce the fact that the law in Northern Ireland has been liberalised and that an incremental attempt at repealing it is bound to fail.
Nevertheless, let us leave the pro-life and pro-choice designations aside and focus on the Bill. It seeks to confuse the grounds on which abortion may take place late in pregnancy, and nothing else. Everyone in the House would like to get to the stage at which abortions do not take place late in pregnancy; indeed, none of us is pro-abortion. This is about women's rights and women's autonomy, not about wanting to see abortions take place.

Liz Kimmins: I thank the Member for giving way. I respect her comments about not getting into the debate around pro-life and pro-choice.
I ask the Member and others in the House whether they share my condemnation of the anti-abortion protest that has been happening at the John Mitchel Place clinic in Newry over the past number of weeks. It is a clinic that provides a range of services for women and children, including speech and language therapy, health visiting, family planning, and support and counselling for women who have suffered miscarriage and stillbirth. Over the past number of days, particularly in the lead-up to the debate, I have been flooded with messages from women who have been impacted by the horrific imagery and disturbing slogans being displayed by protesters who claim to be pro-life. I want to read out a message that I received yesterday from a lady who has had to deal with those protesters every day on her way to work.

Jim Wells: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Alex Maskey: Sorry. I am afraid that you are not able to do that in an intervention, so could you simply wind up your remarks? Thank you.

Liz Kimmins: OK. Thank you, Chair.

Jim Wells: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a well-known precedent in the Assembly that a point of order is a short intervention —

Alex Maskey: I have already addressed that, Mr Wells.

Jim Wells: — not a speech.

Alex Maskey: I have already addressed that. Thank you.

Liz Kimmins: Apologies. I just want to highlight the fact that we are talking about rights — the rights of everyone. Surely, the rights of the women accessing services, for whatever reason, should be respected as part of the conversation. If we were not having this conversation and if the services that have been legislated for had been commissioned, those women would not have to endure the disgraceful scenes they face every day. I am glad that the Member —

Jim Wells: On a point of order.

Alex Maskey: Mr Wells, just remain seated. Could I ask you to conclude your remarks? It is an intervention, and an intervention should be much shorter than you have made it. Thank you.

Liz Kimmins: OK. Thank you, and apologies, Chair. I just wanted to raise that because it is a pertinent issue, particularly in this conversation and discussion. It has caused a lot of tension and concern in my constituency in particular, and when we are —

Alex Maskey: Thank you.

Liz Kimmins: — a part of this conversation —

Alex Maskey: Thank you.

Liz Kimmins: — we should keep that in mind.

Alex Maskey: Thank you.

Paula Bradshaw: Is it not interesting how, last week, I was heckled and disrupted and, this week, another woman who is trying to stand up for the rights of other women is heckled and disrupted? It is absolutely ridiculous, and it speaks to the behaviour of the Members behind us.

Jim Wells: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Alex Maskey: Please make sure that it is a point of order.

Jim Wells: I want to make it absolutely clear that I would have made exactly the same series of interventions had the contributor been a male Member of the House.

Paula Bradshaw: I put on record my support for my colleague Councillor Michelle Kelly, who is seeking, through legal services at Belfast City Council, to outlaw the graphic imagery that is used in the high street. What they do to women who have miscarried, had abortions or any sort of trouble with their pregnancies is very triggering and brings back the trauma.
What the Bill does nothing about, despite its stated intent, is the need to address the key issue of support for women taking pregnancies to full term where possible when they are told about severe fetal impairment. There is a question about whether that support should be given a legal footing, but the Bill does not touch on that. I can well understand the bewilderment of pro-life groups seeing the proposer introduce a Bill that fundamentally reinforces the law on abortion and, indeed, highlights the need for it. Maybe he would like to make further attempts at chipping away at women's choice and bodily autonomy, but he will always be the proposer of a Bill that reinforced a Westminster law that would never have been passed had the Executive in which he served not crumbled.
What bewilders me and should bewilder all of us is why a Bill that is supposedly about disability rights and ensuring that support for people with Down's syndrome is equally valued would focus solely on abortion regulations. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has been widely quoted, and we would do well to adopt the convention into law. We would also do well to interpret it correctly. The chair of the committee has stated:
"I am very concerned that opponents of reproductive rights and autonomy often actively and deliberately refer to disability rights in an effort to restrict or prohibit women's access to safe abortion."
Let us talk about what happens during pregnancy. Here, some of us have a clear idea, and some of us have no idea. The diagnoses come at around the 20-week stage of much-wanted pregnancies. What is presented by proponents of the Bill is a society in which women, finding out that the fetus they are carrying is seriously impaired, decide, solely in their own interests, to opt for termination. What kind of ogres do proponents of the Bill think we women are? Do they seriously think that a woman who has begun to develop an emotional attachment and connection with a fetus would be so utterly callous? We need, once and for all, to end the nonsense that a woman faced with a complexity or crisis in her pregnancy will simply want abortion on demand. That is a scurrilous phrase, which completely misrepresents how decisions are made in practice. Again, I have to add that the proposer has made no effort to understand the situation by engaging, for example, with women's groups, a wider range of disability campaigners or medical professionals. At the Committee for Health, he admitted to having been selective and — I quote — engaging with whom he wants to engage with.
Moving on to disability, we need to consider whom we trust on sensitive issues like this. Most of us watched on with dismay, for example, when a man who had openly mocked a disabled reporter was elected leader of the free world. For most of us, that appalling mockery should have ended his campaign. That said, others among us actively supported that campaign, cheered his election and even advocated his re-election. Others can judge what that tells us about their priorities.
With regard to disability rights, we need to look at the general lack of support for people with disabilities and, indeed, mothers who have been given a diagnosis of what is now termed "severe fetal impairment". Again, the question arises of why other action to support them has not been taken. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) report is clear that mothers who choose to take their pregnancies to term must be supported, yet the Bill seeks only to force them to do so, not support them. That speaks to a particular set of priorities. I wonder whether the Health Minister has given thought to the outworkings of his failure to deliver on the commissioning of the full contents of the abortion regulations: probably not. I want to add at this point that, given the current rightful focus in the media on gender-based violence and the need for respect for women, that intransigence on the commissioning of those services has also delayed the requirement for appropriate, science-based relationships and sexuality education (RSE) in schools. That is still outstanding. The Health Minister needs to consider that.

Jim Allister: Will the Member give way?

Paula Bradshaw: Yes.

Jim Allister: Can the Member tell us where in the regulations there is a compulsion to commission services?

Alex Maskey: As Question Time starts at 2.00 pm, I ask that Members take their ease for a few minutes before we move to the next item. When we resume this item of business, the next Member to speak will, obviously, be Paula Bradshaw.
The debate stood suspended.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Beggs] in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions — Education

Schools: Sporting Activities

Colin McGrath: 1. Mr McGrath asked the Minister of Education when he intends to permit the return of sporting activities to schools. (AQO 1731/17-22)

Peter Weir: I thank the Member for his question. My focus is on achieving a return to face-to-face education for all children, and I must reluctantly accept that some activities associated with schools that have a somewhat higher risk due to mixing within and between year groups, such as school sports, must remain paused at the moment. Those activities will therefore remain paused until public health advice permits them to recommence.
There are many issues around the return to school, including sport, and they will form part of the wider Executive considerations. Indeed, the next stage of that will be tomorrow. The resumption of sport forms part of the Executive's pathway out of restrictions. Opportunities for children and young people to participate in school sports help them build upon the knowledge and skills they develop through the PE curriculum. Schools often build effective relationships with the communities that they service through the medium of sport. Community use of school sports facilities makes an important contribution to community cohesiveness as well.
I recognise that participation in physical activity, both inside and outside of school, makes an important contribution to the well-being and personal development of all our young people. That is why I am very keen to see a return to sport as soon as possible.

Colin McGrath: I welcome some of the Minister's remarks. Sports are done outdoors, are good for physical and mental health and provide an opportunity to mix in a socially distanced way. Is any planning taking place to see whether sports could be introduced in a safe manner? It does not automatically have to be team-based sports but could be sports that allow people to participate. However, at the same time, it could happen a bit quicker.

Peter Weir: I take that on board. Maybe they are looking to this House. We are not always on the same team. Team-based sports are always a little bit of a dubious issue in that regard.
The broader return to education will, in part, be done on the basis of a range of mitigations that we will put in place, and the same can be done with sport. Perhaps there is a slight misunderstanding among some people, because, when the pathway document was produced, it put school sports specifically at strand 4, but the wider sports side was put at strand 2. Those two can move along together, and it is important that, if we see a movement in sport in general, that should also include school sports. That is why, when reference was made to the issue of spectators, a particular provision was included in the pathway document to allow a level of spectators at school events. It is important that there is a balance.
From that point of view, it is important that we move as quickly as possible to the resumption of sports activities. Whatever mitigations need to be put in place can be examined and will be dependent upon what information the Executive receive from the Public Health Agency and the Department of Health on those mitigations. There is interlinkage between the two. Part of my old school song was "sana mens in corpore sano", which means a healthy mind in a healthy body, and the interlinkage between the two is important, not just for the physical advantage of our young people but because the impact on mental health and well-being is critical.

Chris Lyttle: The impact of school closure and the closure of youth sport has been severe on children and young people, so I welcome the planned resumption of outdoor sport training and games without spectators in phase 2 of the Executive's COVID recovery plan. Will the Education Minister work with his Executive colleagues to ensure a coordinated response to the resumption of school and club sport as soon as possible?

Peter Weir: As well as being Chair of the Education Committee, I know that the Member has a strong interest in sports and comes from a very strong sporting background. Sport is very important to give a wider context to our young people. Everything that we do should be coordinated as much as possible and use a level of cooperation. Clearly, with sport and education, there is a strong nexus between the Departments of Communities, Health and Education. Therefore, I am happy to commit to work towards a coordinated response. Whatever sport we follow, many of us associate St Patrick's Day as a great school sports occasion. Unfortunately, that will not happen this year, but the sooner that we can resume sporting activities to benefit all our young people, the better.

Maurice Bradley: I welcome the Minister's announcement about the return to sport. Can I ask the Minister about the possibility of opening the schools estate to youth clubs and community organisations that work with children over the summer months? Sometimes children attend the same schools and clubs, and it will make sure that the time lost in physical education can be made up over the summer months.

Peter Weir: Yes, very much so. I know that there is good interaction and working between our schools and community organisations. In particular, we see that interaction in the sporting context. Often, school sports grounds are linked with community sports facilities. I will bring proposals to the Executive on a wider recovery package for our young people and their education. While there will be a focus on the academic side, there will also be a focus on broader mental health and well-being.
Physical activity, particularly over the summer, will be critical. As part of the overall package that will, hopefully, run throughout the year, there will be specific activities targeted for the summer months. By that stage, I hope that the vast majority of restrictions will have been lifted. Coordination between the community and schools can happen, particularly on the sports field. I am acutely aware that activities can be delivered through a sports club or a community-based organisation that can take sport over and above what can be directly delivered in schools. I know that sporting initiatives have happened down the years, and I am keen to see those embraced during the summer months.

Bullying in Schools: Zero Tolerance

Jonathan Buckley: 2. Mr Buckley asked the Minister of Education how the Addressing Bullying in Schools Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 will contribute to a zero-tolerance approach to bullying across the sector. (AQO 1732/17-22)

Peter Weir: The intention of the Addressing Bullying in Schools Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 is to provide greater consistency in how schools respond to bullying incidents and allegations and to ensure that all pupils are protected to the same best-practice standards. The Act is an important piece of legislation that builds on schools’ existing duty of care for their pupils and strengthens the protection that pupils can expect if they experience bullying in school.
The Act, which will commence on 1 September this year, will provide a common definition of bullying; require all schools to centrally record incidents of bullying, the motivation and outcome; and require each school’s board of governors to take greater collective responsibility for the development, implementation, monitoring and periodic review of a school's anti-bullying policies and procedures. The recording requirements of the legislation will allow schools to monitor patterns and trends of bullying and ensure that instances of bullying are addressed promptly and effectively.

Jonathan Buckley: I thank the Minister for his answer. I am sure that the Minister will agree that bullying is a scourge on our society and, particularly, in our classrooms. Bullying has a devastating and long-lasting impact on a child that can go on throughout their life. Can the Minister elaborate on the duty that the Act imposes on boards of governors?

Peter Weir: I thank the Member for his question. I agree with the Member on the longer-term impact that bullying can have on individuals. Sadly, we are seeing a difficulty with bullying that happens entirely outside the remit of the school, and that is beyond the reach of any legislation. We can see what happens on social media. Specifically, boards of governors, as a corporate body, are legally responsible for all the decision and actions taken in their name by individual governors, the principal, or by committees to which they have delegated functions. The Act will place a statutory duty on boards of governors to determine the detailed measures that are to be taken at schools in order to prevent bullying and to ensure that the measures are properly implemented and are kept under periodic review. They should be reviewed at least every four years in order to ensure that they are fit for purpose. The legislation will require a review at intervals not exceeding four years.
Governors will be actively involved in developing and monitoring the effectiveness of their schools' anti-bullying policies. It is important that those policies do not simply sit on a shelf but are directly implemented. Governors will also be better informed when supporting or, indeed, challenging how staff handled an incident.
In many ways, as I mentioned, this is about dealing with best practice. Most schools will already have policies on bullying in place, and it is important that that is the case. A lot of schools are very proactive on that front, and these duties will just create a situation in which that best practice is shared across the system.

Órlaithí Flynn: The Minister mentioned some of the guidance and direction for schools. Will any additional support be given to schools and principals on how they should fulfil their obligations in implementing the legislation? I ask that given the challenges and pressures that school environments are under with the pandemic.

Peter Weir: I understand that. We will give as much support and guidance as we can. Guidance has been developed and designed to accompany the Act. It is important to say that this is not something that is just imposed from on high. On the input, we have done a considerable amount of work in working out the implementation with, for instance, the teachers' unions to ensure that the guidance is fit for purpose. There will also be significant input from teachers and wider educational professionals so that what is there is fit for the present. For example, while there are opportunities for schools to develop the methodology for the recording requirements, a bullying incident recording system has been developed and will be available on C2k should schools wish to use it. The Education Authority has also provided training and online resources for schools and their governors.
While we should have a strong system and one that protects our young people, it is important that we also ensure that recording bullying incidents does not become an additional administrative burden. We believe that the online recording of incidents means that it can be done in such a way that does not add any significant administrative burden to schools.
In many ways, it is about taking a belt and braces approach. We believe in trying to create a very similar approach because the vast bulk of schools will have procedures in place already anyway. Hopefully, we will simply be building on good practice.

Rosemary Barton: Minister, while an abhorrent action, bullying often masks underlying issues with perpetrators. Given that victims unequivocally deserve every support, what steps will be taken to reform and educate the perpetrators?

Peter Weir: I think that we will have individual cases. It is important that, first of all, levels of support are given to victims of bullying. There will not always be a one-size-fits-all type of situation, and individual interventions will need to take place. Clearly, one of the things that will need to happen is good education in the classroom to help to prevent bullying in the first place. Again, rather than trying to deal with the consequences of something, we should try to ease it at the start. That will also not only go down in the guidance but will play to the actions that schools will take in the policies that are developed by governors. Teachers are wise enough to know what levels of interventions are there.
Also important and why, for instance, motivation is one of the areas that will be recorded, is that it is important for schools to see where there are potential trends. If, for example, they see particular problems with racism, misogyny or whatever, they will be able to have a bit of a data capture. At least they will be able to see where the bullying is coming from and, hopefully, be able to target any actions to directly deal with the problem.

Schools: Smaller Class Sizes

Gerry Carroll: 3. Mr Carroll asked the Minister of Education what recommendations he has considered in relation to smaller class sizes post COVID-19. (AQO 1733/17-22)

Peter Weir: I thank the Member for his question. My Department already operates a policy of maximum class sizes for children in the foundation stage and Key Stage 1 as well as for practical subjects in the curriculum.
The available evidence on educational attainment suggests that, except in the very early years, class size reduction does not have a significant impact on student outcomes and that the main driver of the variation in pupil learning at school is the quality of teaching provided. Small reductions in class size are unlikely to be cost-effective relative to other strategies. Other interventions such as individual or small group tuition provided to those most in need through my Department’s Engage programme are likely to have a greater impact.
Using normal formative assessment approaches in the classroom, schools will work to understand where pupils are in their learning after the period of remote learning. I am confident that schools will identify and support the pupils who are most likely to experience difficulties in engaging with learning. However, I fully recognise that there will be a need to plan for and to fund ongoing, evidence-based interventions to support schools to limit the long-term effects of the current disruption. I plan to bring proposals to the Executive shortly for a further support programme for a range of educational settings. That will build on the work of the Engage programme in 2021, subject to Executive agreement and availability of funding.

Gerry Carroll: I thank the Minister for his answer. His assertion that smaller class sizes do not have an impact on education may be disputed. They are important in protecting people from the virus, they can enhance learning, they allow for more one-to-one assistance, and they can be better for those with learning disabilities, sensory issues and so on. I and many others would say that they are better for education overall. Will the Minister commit to looking at international best practice, given that other countries have smaller classes, to see whether we can implement those measures here?

Peter Weir: I did not say that there was no impact at all. However, if we are looking at interventions, particularly on the academic side, there is limited evidence that, outside of early years, smaller classes make a significant difference.
Where there are learning difficulties and issues with special educational needs, there is a process that allows one-to-one interventions, particularly for somebody who is statemented. With that statement, intervention for an individual will be retained. That may mean that a particular classroom assistant is assigned to an individual, and that, I think, is the right way to tackle it.
As for the broader issue of class sizes and looking at best practice, I will try to ensure that we get the best results with the levels of investment and resources that are available. However, a move to much smaller class sizes would require a high level of resource-intensive commitment. Ultimately, I can allocate only what is in the Department of Education's budget. While we are still in the draft Budget stage, the overall Education budget for next year, outside the COVID interventions, is likely to be fairly close to being flatlined in cash terms, meaning there will be no radical change.
I am also looking at where interventions will take place in the best possible way. By the summer, we are due to have the report of the expert panel on educational underachievement. I will study closely its recommendations and try to ensure that, as much as possible, they are implemented as well.

Carál Ní Chuilín: I thank Gerry for asking the question. Minister, as part of your priorities in bringing proposals to the Executive, will you confirm that you will look at prioritising capital expenditure on children, particularly those who are statemented, who are being educated in Portakabins that were supposed to be temporary but have been there for decades?

Peter Weir: With COVID, it is likely that that will be a resource rather than a capital issue. However, the overall capital Budget for the Executive is likely to be smaller next year than this year. That means that the overall quantum of the draft allocation that is made directly to schools for the capital programme will be smaller. However, there have been indications from the Department of Finance that it is looking to supplement that through the reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI). As part of that, part of our bid for next year will look at not only where we are with the mainstream baseline capital build but at what capital funding can provided through RRI. That is likely to concentrate particularly on additional quick intervention for special needs education.
The Member is right to say that, where we can, moving from Portakabins to more permanent structures is better. The only caveat that I will add is that, as anybody who has been around schools will know, Portakabins now are light years away from what they were when the Member opposite and I were at school.

Carál Ní Chuilín: They didn't have Portakabins in my day.

Peter Weir: The Member opposite may —

Roy Beggs: Order.

Peter Weir: — have dreamt of the prospect of Portakabins. Some of us, however, take a slightly old-fashioned attitude to how we see them. The modern mobile classrooms that are provided tend to be of a very high quality. However, the aim, as far as is possible, is to move towards having permanent structures.
In a more general sense, if there is capacity in the industry to deliver it and there is finance, there is always at least twice as much that could be done on capital builds. As with anything else, in education it is about choosing between good projects rather than between good and bad projects.

William Humphrey: Minister, thank you for your visit to the excellent Springfield Primary School last week. In 2005, it had 67 pupils; it now has over 200. The school has had an extension built, but it is no longer big enough. I ask the Minister to consider that school for any future investment in new buildings.
I ask the Minister what flexibilities schools have with class sizes and numbers.

Peter Weir: I was delighted to be at Springfield during the week. I value the professionalism of the staff, but the joy of the returning pupils showed the direct benefits of face-to-face teaching. I congratulate the school on the success that it has had.
Speaking directly about the COVID situation, I will say that class sizes have to be set in line with health and safety requirements. In post-primary schools, necessary assessments are carried out to allow flexibility of class sizes for practical subjects. Strictly speaking, while there are limits placed on what is allowed for the early years of primary school, there is more flexibility with the limits for P5 to P7.
We know that, particularly in years 1 to 4, smaller class sizes can have a positive impact on outcomes. The law in that circumstance requires that class sizes for the youngest children be kept to a maximum of 30. Flexibility for post-primary class sizes tends to be for subjects such as science, art and design, and PE. That level of flexibility has been in place unchanged since 2004 for class sizes that are in excess of 20 pupils, up to a maximum of 26. That also applies for years 8 to 10 and years 11 and 12 for practical subjects such as home economics, music, and design and technology. Some of that can mean an opportunity for schools to ensure that they are able to use their budgets as effectively as possible. There is a level of flexibility, but the health and safety of pupils remains paramount. Any school's board of governors must be content that any practical arrangements reflect that.

Daniel McCrossan: Minister, they say that hindsight is a wonderful thing. Given the level of infection in classrooms when schools have been open and the huge numbers of pupils who had to isolate, if the Minister could go back in time, would he do anything different about classroom sizes? Would he have put in extra resources or, if possible, split the size of classrooms?

Peter Weir: With respect, we did not have those huge impacts. The position was very similar to what happened elsewhere. I make no apology for trying to ensure that we got the maximum number of pupils in.
The reality is that there is flexibility on class sizes, as has been said, for all schools, and some schools have been able to use the opportunity, where they can split classes and use extra space. The principal constraint is that, from a teaching point of view, if we simply disperse large numbers of children across the piece, there will be an issue with the number of available teachers. It is simply not an effective way of teaching. There will be barriers because of the volume of substitute teachers. A number of schools, particularly at primary level, are having difficulty getting substitute teachers, so there are restrictions on that. Obviously, I am always keen to take lectures on the basis of hindsight from the Member opposite.

Schools: Capital Projects in Foyle

Martina Anderson: 4. Ms Anderson asked the Minister of Education for a breakdown of major capital projects and contracts grant-aided by his Department in the Foyle constituency since March 2017. (AQO 1734/17-22)

Peter Weir: I thank the Member for her question. Ardnashee School in the Foyle constituency was announced under a major capital works call and is in planning, with an approved business case of £33·92 million. The school is due on site this summer. As well as the major capital works, three projects are progressing under the second call to the school enhancement programme (SEP2). Those projects are Chapel Road Primary School, Greenhaw Primary School and Holy Child Primary School. Each of those projects will see an investment of up to £4 million to improve the schools. In addition to that, there are four voluntary Youth Service schemes directly through the schools that received capital funding of £4·5 million under the two youth calls that have been made.

Martina Anderson: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, as you know, the Finance Minister has made social value a mandatory component of procurement contracts. Can you confirm that there will be social clauses in the procurement contracts coming on stream and that social value will be an integral part of the capital funding for Derry?

Peter Weir: Certainly, for any contract, we comply with the position across the Executive as a whole. There is no particular issue with that. As for the detail of what is in a contract, I am probably not in a position to comment directly on that. We want to ensure that, across the Executive, we produce a consistent approach to that.

Kellie Armstrong: Given that we are talking about major capital projects, I am keen to hear from you about the roll-out of Fresh Start and how well that is performing across Northern Ireland. It seems to be extremely slow at the moment.

Peter Weir: We are confident that the full amount will ultimately be spent, and we will write to the Member on some of the detail. As she will be aware, and I think that this was tackled in the last mandate, one of the issues historically with the Fresh Start money was that it was largely agreed at prime ministerial level, without Treasury really wanting a penny to be spent. That meant that there were discussions with Her Majesty's Government about the detail, and a range of conditions was put in that had to be considered by my predecessor and me and will, indeed, have to be considered by my successor. First, everything has to be a completely new project, so, for example, Parkhall Integrated College, which had been announced at that stage, could not avail itself of Fresh Start money. Secondly, it has to be a complete new build, so SEP was effectively knocked out of the picture. Also, schools that, for instance, did not exactly fit with integrated status but had a high level of mixing — there is a small number of "super-mixed" schools, as they are called — were also excluded. At that stage, there was a bar on spend between years. That was successfully negotiated on by way of the confidence-and-supply arrangement, and it has been continued. There is some progression. That means that there will be peaks and troughs in the funding, but we are confident that the overall £500 million will be absorbed in the 10-year period.

BTEC: Irish-medium Provision

Sean Lynch: Ceist uimhir a sé. Question 6.

Peter Weir: It is question 5 rather than question 6.

Sean Lynch: Sorry about that.

Sean Lynch: 5. Mr Lynch asked the Minister of Education for an update on the provision of BTEC qualifications through the medium of Irish. (AQO 1735/17-22)

Peter Weir: Currently, BTEC qualifications through the medium of Irish are facilitated by a contractual arrangement between the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) and the awarding organisation, Pearson. Towards the end of 2019, the Pearson awarding organisation had given notice of its intention to end that agreement and no longer provide the qualifications. While CCEA continued its discussions with Pearson about the decision, the school that was offering those BTECs was advised to consider and identify alternative qualifications. Unfortunately, in the past couple of weeks, Pearson has confirmed its intention to withdraw from the arrangement, withdrawing level 3 qualifications in September 2021 and level 2 qualifications in September 2022. Pearson's decision has been taken in the context of a significant change to all level 3 BTECs this year. Pearson 2010 BTECs are being withdrawn fully across the UK in September 2021, and the new style 2016 BTECs will be the only BTECs available to any school, be it in the medium of English or Irish. The new-style BTECs introduce external assessment units, making them more like A levels in their assessment arrangements.
CCEA provides a range of applied A levels that are available in the medium of Irish. A total of 13 applied A levels are offered by CCEA. Other vocational qualification providers may wish to make their qualifications available in Irish, and CCEA has contacted other providers to explore that option. CCEA will continue to explore what further actions might be possible to address the matter.

Roy Beggs: I will allow the Member to ask a brief supplementary.

Sean Lynch: I thank the Minister for his answer. I am sorry for the confusion, Minister. What I have asked you to do is to step up your engagement with the qualifying bodies to ensure that those qualifications are there for Irish-medium students.

Peter Weir: There are two aspects to that, and obviously the direct engagement is with CCEA through Pearson. Pearson is the only group that directly offers BTECs, and, as it is an awarding organisation, we have no means of directly compelling it to do things. It could withdraw entirely from the Northern Ireland market, and we want to make sure that there are no particular barriers.
It is not helpful when there is a narrowing of choice, but there are awarding organisations that also provide alternative vocational qualifications. CCEA is working with them and will step up to the mark to provide qualifications. The problem is that we are very much in the one boat with Pearson when it comes to BTEC.

Roy Beggs: That ends the period for listed questions. We will now have 15 minutes of topical questions to the Minister of Education.

Relationships and Sexuality Education

Chris Lyttle: T1. Mr Lyttle asked the Minister of Education whether he agrees that standardised relationships and sexuality education (RSE) is fundamental to promoting appropriate behaviour and to preventing serious sexual offences against women and girls and to state the action that he has taken to implement the Gillen review recommendations, including a school sexual offences awareness campaign, particularly in light of the fact that the outpouring of pain and anger in response to the heinous murder of Sarah Everard and in relation to male violence against women and girls has been palpable. (AQT 1101/17-22)

Peter Weir: We are working closely on that issue and met on Thursday specifically to discuss it. I join the Member in condemning and expressing horror at what appears to be the brutal murder of Sarah Everard. It is a clear sign of the terrible criminal action to which too many women have been subjected. We all stand in solidarity on that issue.
There are a number of aspects of the Gillen report that are related and where there is an interconnection between education and justice. Last Thursday, the Justice Minister and I met to discuss the implementation of those issues. That relates to what is taught in the classroom and to issues in the iMatter programme, what provision can be made for the CCEA's RSE Hub and work on ongoing teacher training on the issue. We had a productive meeting, and our two Departments will continue to work together to ensure that there is full implementation of the Gillen recommendations.

Chris Lyttle: I thank the Minister for his update. Further to his meeting with the Justice Minister, Naomi Long, will he review the minimum content order to ensure that all fundamental matters, such as consent, are included in standardised relationships and sexuality education in schools?

Peter Weir: The Northern Ireland curriculum is not prescriptive, which can have advantages by providing flexibility, agility and ability to take on orders. As part of the meeting, we agreed for my officials and the Department of Justice officials to work together on that and other issues, such as consent, which is critical to education on that front. Another important issue among others is trying to break cycles of abuse, particularly domestic abuse, because we know that one of the added problems is that those who have experienced abuse as a young child have a greater propensity to be involved with abuse at a later age. It is important that that is addressed.
Under the current legislative position, imposing direct curriculum changes on any subject would require a change in primary legislation. Schools should be in a position to step up to the mark on these crucial issues. We all have to realise, particularly from a Justice point of view, that we are in a fast-moving environment. Issues that seem tangential at the moment may become central in one or two years' time. There has to be flexibility to ensure that we create as safe an environment as possible for everyone.

Face-to-face Teaching

Gary Middleton: T2. Mr Middleton asked the Minister of Education whether, at tomorrow’s Executive meeting, he will urge his ministerial colleagues to ensure that children can go back to school as soon as possible, given that many parents who have children in P4 and above are very much in the dark about when their children will return to face-to-face teaching. (AQT 1102/17-22)

Peter Weir: There will be wider discussion in the Executive tomorrow. I would have preferred it if decisions could have been made earlier, but we are where we are. Last week, we were able to agree that there would be no interruption to the education of P1 to P3 pupils and those of preschool age. That was an important step forward, but we will reach something closer to normality only when we have all students back, particularly those at primary level. I can understand that, when those at primary level see a younger sibling perhaps heading into school, they are confused as to why they are not. It is important that we bring a level of certainty tomorrow. I will certainly push for that return as soon as possible, in line with whatever public health mitigations need to be put in place. From the point of view of the academic side, where families are at and the mental health and well-being of young people, it is critical that we return to face-to-face teaching as soon as is practicably possible.

Gary Middleton: I thank the Minister for that response. Minister, we hear from a lot of teachers and school leaders who want that clarity to be able to move from remote learning to face-to-face learning, but they need as much time for that as possible. I join him in urging all the other parties, which are doing a lot of shouting, to support our young people and students in getting back to school —

Roy Beggs: Do you have a question?

Gary Middleton: — and ensure that they can do so in a safe manner.

Peter Weir: That was like the old GCSE or A level question with the word "Discuss" at the end. I hope that the Executive will be able to unite around positions where we all value education and the role of our young people. While the focus has been on schools, I am acutely aware of the importance of a phased return of, for example, generic Youth Service provision. The very rapid return of child-centred activities like Sure Start, which concentrate on areas where there is disadvantage, will be critical as well. I hope that the Executive, in considering all those things at our discussion tomorrow, will make our young people a priority.

Holywood Primary School: New Build

Alex Easton: T3. Mr Easton asked the Minister of Education for an update on a potential new build for Holywood Primary School. (AQT 1103/17-22)

Peter Weir: I thank the Member for the question. I have been at Holywood Primary. There is nothing proposed for Holywood Primary currently. It was not successful in any of the previous calls. On the need for new build, the aim is that, later this year, there will be a fresh call for major capital works. Those circumstances require, first, the managing authority to agree that Holywood or, indeed, any other school goes forward. Those schools are then evaluated and, as part of that, ranked according to the level of support that is required. There will be that opportunity for Holywood and others to apply. I also hope that, within the next year, there will be a further call for the school enhancement programme, which, particularly for primary schools, is often the best route.

Alex Easton: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, does your Department ever look at other types of funding, rather than just capital funding, for potential new school builds?

Peter Weir: We look at any opportunities to draw in additional money. If it is a new build, it is, by definition, capital money. However, as I indicated, there are sometimes different strands of capital money. We operate major new builds. We also look at the school enhancement programme and minor works. Apart from the directly baselined money, as was indicated earlier, we can also bid for RRI money. Schools can apply in various ways. Major capital builds for primary schools tend to be a much longer and expensive process. The Member will know that a site search, for instance, will need to be done, as with Bangor Central Integrated Primary School, so it will be a longer process. The school enhancement programme can spend up to £4 million within that. When the streams are announced, there is nothing to stop any school applying for either or both of them, but, obviously, it can benefit from only one of them at a time.

Portadown College: New-build Plans

Jonathan Buckley: T4. Mr Buckley asked the Minister of Education for an update on the new-build plans for Portadown College, given that although the college is an educational jewel in the crown in Upper Bann, its current building is long past its best, with significant infrastructure issues that affect its ability to provide educational excellence, albeit a new-build scheme was proposed as far back as 2006, with a debate in the House in 2009, when the Education Minister, Caitríona Ruane, said that it was estimated that a replacement school would be completed by 2012-13. (AQT 1104/17-22)

Peter Weir: At present, there are no direct plans for that. Primary and post-primary schools are on separate lists when assessments for capital builds are carried out. I assure the Member and the Member who asked the previous question that there will not be direct competition between Holywood Primary School and Portadown College.
In the previous round, Portadown College was ranked at, I think, 15 among post-primary schools. At that stage, a high level of assessment was given on the basis of where mergers were taking place, and that disadvantaged schools that were not involved in a merger. One of the advantages of the previous occasion is that, as a result of that announcement, half a dozen schools were taken off the list. That means that, when a new capital build call is made, the potential rivals to Portadown and others for the money will have been removed, and they will be able to bid.
There was an expectation, in 2006, that capital finance would go up and up and up, but, unfortunately, we had the crash, and a lot of promises that had been made to schools had to be withdrawn. I assure the Member that, from my point of view, if Portadown, Holywood or wherever is announced on a capital list, it will happen.

Jonathan Buckley: I thank the Minister for his answer. The need for a new build at the location was identified in 2006. I am sure that the Minister will agree that the issues and the infrastructure have got worse since. Will the Minister agree to visit Portadown College with me to see at first hand areas in which we need urgent investment?

Peter Weir: I am always keen to visit schools and will be happy to go to Portadown College, if the Member sends me an invitation. It is important to see the issues at first hand. To some extent, opportunities to go to schools have been greatly reduced by the COVID restrictions. As restrictions ease, there will, hopefully, be greater opportunities. I will be happy to see at first hand the issues at Portadown. There is no lack of willingness to provide support for schools. Obviously, the one constraint will be available budget, and therefore any capital call will tend to be a competitive process, as it is on any occasion.

Children: Return to School

Trevor Clarke: T5. Mr Clarke asked the Minister of Education what he believes would be best for children in relation to returning them to school, their education and their mental health, given that many people, whether the public, politicians or teachers, have offered their opinion. (AQT 1105/17-22)

Peter Weir: I have always made it clear that I want to see children in school, getting face-to-face teaching. I want that as soon as is practical, given the public constraints.
Quite often, the focus is on academic catch-up, and there is no doubt that, despite the brilliant work that has been done by schools, teachers, parents and students themselves on remote learning, it is, at best, a secondary substitute for face-to-face teaching. To some extent, it is easier to put investment into achieving academic catch-up.
What is a more difficult issue is the mental health and well-being of our young people, and that is why we need to see children back as soon as possible. I saw that at first hand amongst the very young children at Springfield during the week. Simply, the biggest single thing for, in particular, those P3s was seeing some of their friends who they had not seen during the lockdown and having that opportunity for interaction. The long-term damage that has already been done to mental health and well-being concerns me, so, for a range of reasons, including physical health, the sooner that we can get back to a situation where all children are directly in school, the better.

Roy Beggs: That is the end of our period of questions to the Minister of Education. I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments until the Minister of Finance is ready.

Oral Answers to Questions — Finance

Summer Schemes: Departmental Bids

Robbie Butler: 1. Mr Butler asked the Minister of Finance to outline any bids made by the Department of Education or the Department for Communities for potential summer schemes to mitigate the effects of lost school and socialisation time due to COVID-19. (AQO 1746/17-22)

Conor Murphy: The Department of Education has submitted bids of £4 million for summer schemes for 2021 relating to primary, post-primary and education other than at school (EOTAS) settings as well as £5 million for the Youth Service summer scheme programme 2021 for consideration as part of the Budget for 2021-22. Those bids will be subject to consideration in light of available funding and competing pressures. No bids have been received from the Department for Communities for that purpose, and neither are any such bids expected, as this is not within its area of responsibility.

Robbie Butler: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, you may or may not be aware that eminent educational psychologists here in Northern Ireland and across the UK have called for the absolute need to integrate and assess our students before they return to full-time education. Will there be scope in your Department to meet any further funding bids that may be made from either Department in order to make sure that our kids get off to the best start post-COVID?

Conor Murphy: The Member will know that next year's Budget is a flat-cash Budget, which means that Departments will get a stand-still rollover of the money that they had this year. That is very challenging, particularly for Departments, such as Education, that have a huge salary base. COVID money was available for the end of this year, and COVID money will be available into the new year. The Department of Education has bid for and been earmarked for some of that. I suppose that it will be up to the Minister to prioritise it. I listened to him as I was waiting to come into the Chamber, and I agree with his view on the benefits, particularly for younger kids but for schoolkids generally, of being in the school setting and with what he said about the absence from that setting and the pressures that that has created. There will need to be a close look at how they get back into the system again, and, if there are supports that we can provide for that, I will be more than happy to consider them.

Justin McNulty: Minister, you will be aware that some kids are participating in homeschooling on their mobile phones. What resources have you allocated throughout the pandemic to bridge the digital inclusion gap for young people in education via the provision of expanded IT support for schools and IT equipment for all children who do not have adequate IT at home for schooling?

Conor Murphy: The Member will know that it is for the Department of Education to provide such resources. Over the year, it bid for various COVID-related funds, some of which were to be used to support kids who were struggling with home learning. Of course, he knows, as I do, particularly given the constituency that we both represent, about the difficulty in accessing broadband. That is a matter for the Department for the Economy, which is rolling out Project Stratum. It has been very challenging for families and young people to try homeschooling in good circumstances, but it is even more difficult in circumstances in which the IT support is not there.
My Department has digital responsibility for the broader Civil Service. We have an initiative for rolling out IT support for vulnerable people, but not for the school scenario; that is the responsibility of the Department of Education. We have run a pilot scheme, which was oversubscribed. I am glad to say that we will continue to provide that support.

Zero-carbon Buildings

Andrew Muir: 2. Mr Muir asked the Minister of Finance what plans he has to use his power regarding building regulations to achieve the aim of zero-carbon buildings. (AQO 1747/17-22)

Conor Murphy: My Department has prepared an ambitious draft programme of phased uplifts to the energy efficiency requirements of building regulations for inclusion in the Executive's forthcoming energy strategy options consultation. We will refine that further and consult as appropriate as part of our ongoing work. Officials are focused on an urgent uplift to the current requirements for new buildings, which we plan to bring forward within this Executive period, if possible. Officials are engaging with the Department's building regulations advisory committee and its specialist subcommittees on the details. Further uplifts will take into account technological advances and policy developments in other regions over the coming years. It seems likely that revisions made after 2025 will anticipate that all new buildings will routinely have very high building fabric standards and low-carbon heating.

Andrew Muir: I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. A short while ago, I submitted a question for written answer to the Minister about whether his Department would take the lead in ensuring the removal of unsafe cladding from buildings in Northern Ireland. The Minister's response stated that he had recommended a building safety programme and supporting fund to the Executive but that he was still awaiting the outcome of his proposals. Will the Minister provide an update on that?

Conor Murphy: The responsibility for those matters rests across a range of Departments. Although there may be some merit in having a discussion on having a single home for all of them, it would be very difficult to extract from various Departments the associated responsibility. There is an urgency in trying to do this. I have brought propositions to the Executive to try to get an agreement, under the head of the Civil Service, across all Departments on where each responsibility lies and on a coordination function. I have also said that, if there were a retrofit-type scheme to address some of the issues that arose from that, I would be very happy to look at that proposition. We want to ensure that the proper degree of coordination across all Departments and all those responsibilities is brought to bear in these matters. Given the experience that he referred to, these are very serious issues, and they need to be addressed urgently.

Caoimhe Archibald: Will the Minister, following on from Mr Muir's question, provide an update on the progress being made on the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower inquiry?

Conor Murphy: We will have to be cognisant of that and look at the recommendations that come from it. Some proposals have already been developed to look at buildings across Britain, and we have looked at whether Barnett consequentials will flow from that. Clearly, there are very serious issues with building materials and with the approach to and verification of testing. A wide range of serious issues throws up questions for a range of Departments here. As I said, one of the difficulties is that the responsibility for various aspects of this lies across a range of Departments. We need to ensure that we coordinate as best we can across those Departments. We need a central authority to ensure that that coordination works and that all the component parts play their part and are resourced to do so, so that we do not have any such tragedy here.

Rachel Woods: Has the Minister or his Department considered the 'Energy Governance for the Northern Ireland Energy Transition' research report, which was commissioned by the Northern Ireland Executive? What is his position on the recommendation that a new Department for Climate and Energy Transition be set up?

Conor Murphy: I have not considered the report. Given the position of our Budget for next year, starting a completely new Department would probably be challenging and involve more resource than the Executive have. Arguments around setting up a completely new Department probably fit into the context of a longer-term strategic plan in the time frame of the Programme for Government and a multi-year budget, and I am certainly happy to look at that. Between now and the end of the mandate, with a rollover flat-cash Budget, we want to quickly bring our standards of building up to the highest level of environmental efficiency and other efficiencies. We have acknowledged that we have to catch up. We want to do that as quickly as we possibly can, but, for the longer term, the strategic projects to which the Member refers will more than likely be a matter for an incoming Executive beyond this mandate.

Troubles Permanent Disablement Payment Scheme

Linda Dillon: 3. Ms Dillon asked the Minister of Finance for an update on funding for the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme. (AQO 1748/17-22)

Steve Aiken: 15. Dr Aiken asked the Minister of Finance whether he will publish the information received by his Department from the Government Actuary's Department regarding the estimated cost of the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme. (AQO 1760/17-22)

Conor Murphy: With your permission, a LeasCheann Comhairle, I will answer questions 3 and 15 together.
On 23 February, along with the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Minister of Justice, I met the Secretary of State to discuss funding for the scheme. At that meeting, I pressed him on the need to resolve the matter urgently so that victims can get the payments to which they are entitled. I highlighted the need for the British Government to make a fair contribution to the cost of the scheme in recognition of changes that they made to it.
I have since written to the Secretary of State to confirm that I am content to recommend that the Executive meet the full costs of a scheme, as envisaged in the Stormont House Agreement, as well as any implementation and administration costs. We were due to meet the Secretary of State again last week, and I hope that the meeting scheduled for tomorrow goes ahead as a matter of urgency.
I remain absolutely committed to resolving the question of funding for the scheme. It is important that victims have the certainty that they deserve about its longer-term funding. The Government Actuary’s Department's report on the potential cost of the scheme is being produced for the Executive Office and not my Department. It will be for that Department to decide whether to release it.

Linda Dillon: I thank the Minister for his answer. Has the Secretary of State indicated whether there is any intention to fund your Department in relation to the scheme, which would assure victims right across the North and across these islands that they will get payment when the scheme starts?

Conor Murphy: I have not had anything firm from the Secretary of State. I was told that the meeting that we were due to have at the latter end of last week was postponed so that he could have some discussions with the Treasury. I sincerely hope that that means that they are beginning to accept their responsibility for a scheme that they devised and legislated for and that goes well beyond the scope of the scheme that the parties had agreed to at Stormont House.
If those arguments have begun to land with the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Office, that is progress, but I have nothing firm to report in that regard. We look forward to the meeting with the Secretary of State tomorrow evening, which was postponed from last Thursday. That meeting needs to happen as a matter of urgency. As the Member knows, the courts and, most importantly, the victims await the outcome of those discussions.

Roy Beggs: Steve Aiken is not in his place.

Mike Nesbitt: As I understand it, the Government Actuary's Department has greatly increased its assessment of the cost of the scheme from several hundred million pounds to over £1 billion. Will the Minister explain why that is?

Conor Murphy: The report was produced for the Executive Office and not the Department of Finance, so I do not have the detail behind that. It varied from £600 million right up to £1·2 billion. I suppose that it depends on the number of people who come into the scheme and whether people want upfront or longer-term payments. The substantial expansion of the scheme under a previous Secretary of State created many uncertainties. That is why we have argued that we want to make sure that victims get the payments that they need. We are completely committed to making sure of that.
The Government need to work with us. As, I am sure, the Secretary of State will remember from the Stormont House talks, they took an original scheme on which we were having discussions about responsibilities and who would pay for that proportion of the scheme. We and the Government then talked about pre-1998 issues and the Executive's responsibilities from 1998. We ended up with a substantially larger scheme that brought in a whole range of new people. I am not disputing whether or not people are entitled, as that is a matter for somewhere else, but I am responsible for finding the resource to do that.
Given the state of our resources over the next year, the Executive want to make sure that they can meet the requirements of victims. That is why the Government need to work with us. Thus far, they have not. There are some indications that the Secretary of State and the NIO are beginning to engage, and I hope that they will have something to offer us tomorrow evening.

Paul Frew: Minister, when you meet the Secretary of State this week, even if an agreement is achieved and funding secured, what lead-in time will be required before victims receive money?

Conor Murphy: The Department of Justice will operate the scheme, so that is really a question for it to answer. The Executive have made funding available for its administration, which I proposed. We have already, on a number of occasions, made funding available for the administration and implementation of the scheme. When it begins, there will be an assessment made of whether people are looking either for upfront payments or for a pension-type scheme. Those things are unknown until the scheme opens. As I said, it will be for the Department of Justice to manage that. We want to ensure that, through our work with the Government in London, there is sufficient resource for the scheme so that, when it does open, we can meet whatever costs there are.

Jim Allister: Now that the Lord Chief Justice has directed that the Department of Finance should be a party to the ongoing legal proceedings, there really is shrinking ground on which to avoid the issue. Last week in the House, the First Minister gave a guarantee that the money will be paid, when due, to qualifying victims. Will the Minister give the same guarantee?

Conor Murphy: First, there has been no attempt to avoid the issue. The ground that has been created around it has been created by the Government in London. That is very unfortunate, because it is not the place in which any of us wanted to be. The Government in London took it upon themselves to expand significantly the scheme's scope. They added to the scheme interests that came from the Tory Party Back Benches. They therefore have a responsibility to meet the costs from those. Of course we are absolutely committed to making sure that funding is available for the scheme. The Executive have made that clear time and time again, and the First Minister reiterated that.

Localised Restrictions Support Scheme

Maolíosa McHugh: 4. Mr McHugh asked the Minister of Finance to outline the total spend under the localised restrictions support scheme in the Derry City and Strabane District Council area. (AQO 1749/17-22)

Emma Sheerin: 14. Ms Sheerin asked the Minister of Finance to outline the total spend under the localised restrictions support scheme in Mid Ulster. (AQO 1759/17-22)

Conor Murphy: With your permission, a LeasCheann Comhairle, I will group questions 4 and 14. As of the afternoon of Friday past, 12 March, the total value of payments made from the localised restrictions support scheme is £221·65 million. The amount paid to businesses in the Derry City and Strabane District Council area is £18,462,477. The total spend to date in the Mid Ulster District Council area is £17,950,305.

Maolíosa McHugh: I thank the Minister for already having adequately answered my supplementary question.

Emma Sheerin: I, too, thank the Minister for answering my question. I place on record my appreciation to the Department and to the team in Land and Property Services (LPS), in particular Leona Lees, Ian Snowden and Lenny Peden, who, at this stage, must see my name and sigh. Minister, when can businesses that have not received it expect to receive their payment for the final phase of the scheme?

Conor Murphy: I hope that we are in the final phase of the scheme. If restrictions continue, we might be into further phases, and, if so, I am sure that we will hear from you many more times.

Emma Sheerin: [Laughter.]

Conor Murphy: We are down to a small handful of businesses that meet the terms of the scheme, and we are working our way through them. Some businesses will be disappointed, because they were not found to be eligible for the scheme and thus will not be getting a payment from it. I hope that the announcement that I made earlier today will help some of those businesses.
The businesses that have not yet received payment will receive it as soon as we can make it. Over 98% of cases have now been dealt with. It has been a very challenging scheme, because, as you and other Members will know, LPS is a rate collection agency. We have had to turn its role around and re-profile it as a grant-giving body. We have changed the payment schemes a number of times. The number of times that they have changed escapes me now. We have three different payments, and, at times, people have fallen under the wrong payment scheme, and we have had to go back and fit them into the correct one.
There have therefore been a lot of challenges. Nonetheless, I think that most people will accept that it was a very commendable scheme that provided a vital lifeline to a lot of businesses and kept them in a position from which, as hopefully we now move towards the ending of restrictions, they can get back to what they want to do, which is to start to trade again.

John Blair: Businesses will face many additional challenges as we move towards COVID recovery. Will the Minister detail any plans for restart grants to assist businesses when they are eventually able to reopen?

Conor Murphy: The Department for the Economy has put together a package for economic recovery. There are other aspects to recovery, such as social recovery and the recovery that was discussed earlier in relation to schools. A very broad recovery piece is needed. That Department has put together a package that I propose to deal with in our final Budget paper, which should come to the Assembly very shortly. I am not certain whether restart grants are included in that. It will be a matter for the Economy Minister to bring forward such proposals.
For our part in the Department of Finance, as I said earlier in response to some questions on my statement, I hope that this is the end of our involvement. We have done the rates relief for another year. We have a package of business grant support measures going out. Finance and LPS, in particular, are looking forward to getting back to doing what they do on rates and managing the money.

Social Enterprises: Public Contracts

Martina Anderson: 5. Ms Anderson asked the Minister of Finance, in relation to reform of the Procurement Board, whether the new security of supply and social value initiative will help increase the capacity of local social enterprises to bid for public contracts. (AQO 1750/17-22)

Conor Murphy: Recognising the importance of the social economy sector, I appointed Colin Jess, director of Social Economy NI, as an adviser on the board. The board is working as a first priority to develop an enhanced model for delivery of social value in public procurement, which is linked to Programme for Government outcomes. The board has also agreed to work to build more capacity and resilience in local supply chains to ensure continuity of supply in future public contracts. Those initiatives and Colin’s contribution will increase the opportunities for local social enterprises to bid for public contracts both as a main contractor and as part of the government supply chain.

Martina Anderson: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answer. I appreciate what has happened with regard to the appointment of Colin Jess. It is deeply appreciated by those who work in the social enterprise industry. As you know, Minister, 94p of every pound that is spent by the social enterprises is kept in the local economy in places like Derry. Minister, will you engage with representatives more widely? I am thinking of John McGowan in Derry who is very keen to explore additional ways for social enterprises to increase their capacity to compete for public contracts.

Conor Murphy: Part of Colin's function is to represent the social enterprise sector on the Procurement Board. It is a two-way street, not just to bring his experience into the board but for him to engage with the wider social enterprise sector. He will do that; he has been doing it. I know that the person from Derry whom you mentioned has been talking to the Department. I am very happy to engage with people to develop the best possible policy in the time ahead. We want to see opportunities for the social enterprise sector to engage with tendering and the provision of services, because, in my experience, where those have been provided by that sector, it has brought added value in respect of the communities that it works with. The broader government sector wants to engage with this as part of our Programme for Government commitments. I want to see that work progress as best it possibly can in the time ahead.

Matthew O'Toole: A couple of weeks ago, the Finance Committee took evidence from the Construction Employers Federation. A concern was raised about clarity for firms here, particularly construction firms, on bidding for tenders in the South. They felt that there was not enough clarity. Ironically, with regard to protecting the all-island economy, that was not in the Ireland protocol in enough detail. They are concerned that Northern businesses — Northern construction firms — could be at a disadvantage. Will you ask your Department to look into that and, if possible, make representations via Dublin, London and Brussels to clarify that?

Conor Murphy: I am happy to do that. I am not sure whether it is the same issue or similar to one that we dealt with a number of weeks ago when we got clarity for building firms with a foot on both sides of the border. Their capital, or the value of the company, was being judged only on one side of the border and, therefore, that had an impact on their ability to bid for higher contracts. That anomaly was something that had not been considered pre-Brexit, and it was rectified. Sometimes, these things are a bit like the experiences with Brexit and the protocol; they are problems that either no one had envisaged or someone is misapplying what they think are regulations, which do not exist, to certain sectors. If the Member can give me the detail of that, I will be very happy to look into it and come back to him.

Mike Nesbitt: I understand that public procurement is worth around £3 billion per annum. Does the Minister have a figure in mind as to what the social enterprise sector should be pitching for?

Conor Murphy: That is part of the debate that the Procurement Board is having at the moment. Part of the value of the board, which was reconstituted just before Christmas, is that it brings the various sectors in rather than having the permanent secretaries: that is no disrespect to the permanent secretaries. We had the construction people in, as well as the social enterprise people and the small and medium-sized enterprises. We had the centres of procurement excellence from a number of Departments, and there was a kick around to say, "What is the balance and where does it lie?". That figure is currently under discussion. The social enterprise sector is giving advice as to what it thinks it could step up to achieve, and there are others who think that it might be a challenge for them. I hope that, in the near future, those discussions, which have been very productive and mature, will allow us to see where the balance should be now. We should, and we will always, have an ambition to do better, but let us get off to the right start.

Social Enterprises: Dormant Accounts Fund

Órlaithí Flynn: 6. Ms Flynn asked the Minister of Finance for an update on the roll-out of the dormant accounts fund for social enterprises. (AQO 1751/17-22)

Conor Murphy: The dormant accounts fund is being delivered by the National Lottery community fund, and it opened for applications on 12 January 2021. Phase 1 involves a flexible and responsive grant programme whereby individual organisations, including social enterprises, can apply for up to £100,000 to be able to adapt to future challenges and to be more financially resilient. The first phase will also support larger investments that will enable collaboration and will develop new and creative approaches to sustainability. It is expected that the first grant awards will be announced shortly.

Órlaithí Flynn: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will any more money be made available to social enterprises from the dormant assets scheme?

Conor Murphy: That will happen in the next phase, and I very much look forward to that. The dormant accounts fund has only just opened, but very substantial amounts of money are available to social enterprise projects to make them more financially sustainable and to encourage their growth. The last one I visited was a very progressive social enterprise in Colin, in the Member's constituency in West Belfast. The dormant accounts fund will assist people who have had to focus a lot of their time on sustainability, on access to finance and on trying to generate more money so that it is not always a question of trying to get more money in every year in order to stay alive, if you like. The dormant assets scheme is a much bigger fund, and we are waiting for more detail on that to come through. I hope that, on the back of the dormant accounts programme, the assets scheme will provide a substantially bigger boost to the social economy sector.

Civil Servants: Pay Award

Jemma Dolan: 7. Ms Dolan asked the Minister of Finance for an update on the pay award for civil servants. (AQO 1752/17-22)

Conor Murphy: I want to place on record my thanks to the Civil Service for its hard work and flexibility in response to the many challenges of maintaining and delivering services during the pandemic. I have met the recognised trade unions about the Civil Service pay award, and my officials have had negotiation meetings with the unions. In considering the pay award, I aim to strike the difficult balance between recognising Civil Service colleagues for their work while managing public money carefully in the face of the most challenging economic position for many years. Although the pay award is for 2020, it will, obviously, have consequences for the future overall cost of the very large Civil Service pay bill, so affordability is more critical than ever. I have therefore been considering a range of different options. I have circulated an Executive paper, and the agreement of the draft paper will enable an offer to be made to the trade unions shortly.

Jemma Dolan: I appreciate that the Minister has to strike a balance. Will the pay award prioritise those who are on the lowest pay?

Conor Murphy: I am fully committed to the New Decade, New Approach aim of the Executive becoming a living-wage employer. Department of Finance officials are working to realise that aim for the Civil Service. I have also asked that other public-sector employers consider how pay awards can be targeted to ensure the payment of living-wage foundations. I am also considering ways in which the pay award for the Civil Service can deliver a better outcome for lower-paid workers.

Matthew O'Toole: I will be brief. Minister, I appreciate that there are constraints, as you have just laid out. Do you accept that, given some of the last-minute spending allocations and the delay in announcing details, there is real frustration among ordinary civil servants, particularly those on low pay and those who have had to work extremely hard over the past year to keep public services going? A lot of them are very frustrated that there has been a delay in confirming a settlement.

Conor Murphy: They understand, as, I am sure, most Members do, that we have been grappling with a huge range of issues. The pay award for the public sector is not linked to the money that we are spending at the moment. Nonetheless, I want to get to a point of agreement quickly. I have put a paper to the Executive and hope to get agreement on it quickly. I will make an offer as soon as I can to the unions. I want to see the issue resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

Andrew Muir: Like Mr O'Toole, I believe that it is important that the issue be brought to a conclusion. A number of months ago, the announcement was made about the £500 payment to Health and Social Care (HSC) staff. A recent update said that the costs associated with National Insurance and PAYE would also be covered. Can the Minister update us on when those payments will be made?

Conor Murphy: They are a matter for the Department of Health. The Department asked for more money to assist it in meeting those costs, because the British Government refused not to treat them as a taxation issue and a welfare receipt issue, so they intended to extract their take out of the £500 payment. We have assisted the Department of Health in moving that up to the level that will account for that.
As I say, it is a one-off payment. What we are talking about here is the pay settlement award, which will be an ongoing payment for civil servants. Nonetheless, we were happy to assist the Department of Health, but it is responsible for the roll-out.

Roy Beggs: That is the end of the time for listed questions. We now move on to topical questions. I advise Members that question 3 has been withdrawn.

Green New Deal

John Blair: T1. Mr Blair asked the Minister of Finance whether he will lead on a green new deal strategy for Northern Ireland, given that there is no doubt that the pressing issues of the climate emergency and environmental protection require interdepartmental strategy actions and budgeting. (AQT 1111/17-22)

Conor Murphy: I certainly hope so. The Member knows that we face a challenging Budget next year, which means that the possibility of new initiatives has been absolutely frustrated, because Departments have been able to carry over only the same amount of spend as they had in the previous year. To meet all their pressures and requirements will be a challenge.
I hope that we get to that stage and that Departments collaborate. When we move to a multi-annual Budget, aligned with the Programme for Government, we can plot ahead and get into that type of territory. A lot of things can be done in the Departments' current spend, with the level of collaboration that they should be trying to achieve with one another, to improve environmental outcomes. I certainly hope that we get a green new deal strategy as quickly as possible.

John Blair: I thank the Minister for his answer. Is there merit in requiring all Departments to review their baseline budgets and spending priorities with a focus on the climate emergency?

Conor Murphy: That is a matter for the Executive. I assume that the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs would, perhaps, bring a proposition to the Executive asking all Departments to do that, but it is a matter for the Executive to decide.

Sports Sustainability Fund

Paula Bradley: T2. Ms P Bradley asked the Minister of Finance, after thanking Land and Property Services for all the work that it has done to assist her office with many enquiries over the past year, whether there is any redress for clubs that although they should have applied for the sports sustainability fund — they are sports clubs — were led to believe that they would get localised restrictions support scheme (LRSS) money, but, when the mistake was realised, it was too late for them to apply for the sports sustainability fund, albeit she knows from correspondence that decisions have been overturned for some social clubs that have since received the LRSS money. (AQT 1112/17-22)

Conor Murphy: We had a discussion some time back with the Minister for Communities and some of her senior staff to make sure that the situation that you describe did not arise. We had a similar arrangement with the Department for the Economy when working between the schemes that we were running and it was running. People would apply to the wrong scheme and then find they were out of time when they eventually realised that they needed to go onto a different scheme. We tried to pick those up so that we could consider an application to one in time as an application to another. That was the objective of the discussions. I am told that some progress was made between officials, so I hope that there is not a situation where people think that they are on the right scheme but then find that they are too late for the other. The overall number of applicants for both schemes would be relatively small, so I am hopeful that we will be able to pick those up.
A multitude of schemes have gone out between our Department, Communities, Economy and Infrastructure, and it is hard for the public and the organisations that need support to navigate their way through them. We should be flexible in order to make sure that nobody misses out.

Paula Bradley: I thank the Minister for his answer, and he has probably answered my supplementary. Many sporting organisations were really good and got out to their members quickly to say, "You need to apply for this", but others were absolutely dreadful and did not do that. One was lawn bowls, where there are lots of bowling clubs now —

Roy Beggs: Does the Member have a question?

Paula Bradley: — facing closure. Will you continue to have those conversations with the Minister for Communities and, if possible, open a second tranche of funding for the clubs that missed out the first time around?

Conor Murphy: I am not sure about the latter part because that could take you into issues where somebody else missed out, and then you are into a legal challenge about favouritism or somebody being in early but having the wrong information and perhaps not being approved.
I think that you are right. The parent bodies of most of the organisations were good at advising their club members on what they needed to do and when. Sometimes, by default, they went through to the LRSS, which was paying out earlier and in a more consistent way, and that encouraged others to try the same route. We do not want people to suffer as a consequence of going to the wrong scheme if they were entitled to money from the other scheme, so we will continue to work together on that.

Fiscal Council/Fiscal Commission

Andrew Muir: T4. Mr Muir asked the Minister of Finance, after declaring that his mum is a retired member of the health and social care system, to outline, following his announcement on Friday of the appointment of members to the fiscal council and the fiscal commission, his plans for the relationship between those bodies and to ensure that the fiscal commission takes into account how we currently spend our money when considering tax-varying powers. (AQT 1114/17-22)

Conor Murphy: The Member will know from the membership of both bodies that there are people in them with substantial experience and ability in these matters. Of course, there is an interconnection. The fiscal commission is a time-limited body, and, when it completes its work — hopefully, by the end of this calendar year — and presents a report to me, that report will become part of the ongoing work of the fiscal council. Should an incoming Executive decide to take up some of the issues on the transfer of tax-varying powers, that will clearly become a matter for the council. There is an interplay between them.
I intend to meet the chairs of the council and commission this week and the membership next week. I would like to see them as early as possible given the circumstances that we are all in to begin that level of engagement with this institution, the Finance Committee and others to discuss their business.
There is a widespread welcome for the establishment of both bodies and for some of the personnel that we have been able to attract onto them. I look forward to working with them, and I am sure that Members also look forward to that engagement.

Andrew Muir: I thank the Minister for his response. I congratulate him and the officials in the Department for the signings that he managed to secure for the council and the commission. How will the Minister ensure that the professional advice of the individuals whom he has managed to recruit to the council feeds into the budgetary process so that, when the Assembly is analysing the legislation, through which he often sits for days on end, it is taken into account?

Conor Murphy: That is the function of the council. It is not just for the Finance Department but for the Executive's finances as a whole. However, if we have a responsibility for managing those, there is a key relationship with our Department, and that is why it will bear the cost and administrative support of the council and the commission.
As the Deputy Speaker will recognise from our many conversations, I look forward to having a much simplified Budget process; to having the time to do it properly because we have had more timely announcements from Whitehall; and to having a multi-annual Budget that we can plan and to which we can align a Programme for Government. In that scenario, a fiscal council will have an important supportive role in not only advising the Executive but informing us all generally about public finances and how best to manage them.

Fiscal Council/Fiscal Commission

Matthew O'Toole: T5. Mr O'Toole asked the Minister of Finance, after admitting that he is slightly geeky about this subject, to give a timeline for when the legislation referred to in his statement regarding the fiscal council will be introduced and to clarify that the council will be fundamentally independent from the Department of Finance, which is critical given that, at times, the council will be required to say difficult things in order to do its job properly. (AQT 1115/17-22)

Conor Murphy: As I said, the experience in other jurisdictions has been to establish a fiscal council before legislating to underpin the work that it needs to do. I hope that, if that is required and it gets off to a good start, we will be able to do that in this mandate. If that is required, I would certainly like to get to work on it. I have had discussions with the Chair of the Finance Committee. I know that he cannot purport to speak for the whole Committee, but he said that it would be keen to see that happen and is willing to work with us in the time ahead to make sure that it is done.
Although the Department is providing the budget and some back-up resource for the fiscal council, it will have absolute independence from departmental control. As I say, the people who will be involved in the council, such as Robert Chote, have broad experience in the matter and will know how to manage that line between the necessary resource and support that it gets from government and providing an independent advice service to government.

Matthew O'Toole: I thank the Minister. Further to that, first, can he confirm that both the fiscal commission and fiscal council will have resource for independent economic forecasting? It is mentioned in the statement, but it would be helpful if he could be specific about that. It might be the same for both in the sense that it might be the same people who do it. Secondly, can the Minister be clear that, when the fiscal commission reports, it will report not just to him or to the Department but to the public and the Assembly?

Conor Murphy: In relation to the commission, yes. It is much better if it is a public debate. For the debate to be public, the commission will have to go out and engage with Members of the House, business organisations and other people and organisations with an interest in the matter. Such a report will come to me in the Department, but it is my intention to have a public airing of that. A debate on the report in this institution would be appropriate at that time. It will be in the run-up to the end of the mandate. It is important for people to be able to speak on these matters. The context of the next election — I do not mean that it is an election matter — and the creation of the incoming Executive, it would be helpful to understand the public mood and the public debate on these matters.
As regards the resource for the council or the commission, what we have put forward is the establishment of both bodies. We are happy and determined to work with them to ensure that they can do the job that they need to do. We are happy to consider whatever support they need.

Reform of Property Management Project

Maurice Bradley: T6. Mr M Bradley asked the Minister of Finance, after welcoming the reform of property management project, which is focused on making a more efficient use of the government estate, and the Minister’s commitment to promote regional recovery and regeneration in areas across Northern Ireland, to give his rationale for excluding Coleraine as a hub and, in doing so, preventing the people of the north coast and the north-east of Northern Ireland from being part of the recovery and regeneration. (AQT 1116/17-22)

Conor Murphy: Forgive my geography, but I thought that Ballykelly was on the north coast. That is one of the first schemes that we are rolling out. We are not excluding anyone from the scheme. We are not saying, "These are the 10 that are under consideration, and that is it". The Member is right to say that we added a criterion on being able to support local economic development, and it is important that central government does that wherever it can in locating its services. People from various parts of the North travel into Belfast, so we map the travel routes of Civil Service staff who come in and out of here every day and see where the figures are highest. We are then able to work with local government or, indeed, any part of the central government estate that is readily available to do all of that.
There are a number of factors involved in the consideration of that, and, if the Member is keen that Coleraine be considered, I ask him either to engage with the council down there — I am sure that there is engagement with Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council — or to engage with officials in the Department of Finance to get an understanding of how that criterion was set and how it will apply in the future. This is not about excluding anyone, as this is not the end of the programme. We want to roll it out in the areas that meet the most criteria. I anticipate that it will be successful and that other areas will follow suit.

Roy Beggs: I call Maurice Bradley for a brief supplementary.

Maurice Bradley: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. I will be brief. I thank the Minister for his answer. I remind the Minister that County Hall in my constituency is a building that once held several Departments. It is currently half-empty. During this rationalisation of the government estate, does the Minister have any plans to utilise that seven-storey building in the heart of East Londonderry?

Conor Murphy: I am sure that the officials who are tasked with working on this — some staff from the Strategic Investment Board (SIB) were tasked to work with us and with local government organisations on this — will look at the entire Civil Service estate and all other public buildings across the North to see what can be utilised. It will depend on what state a building is in and on who is using it.
This is not being done to relocate jobs but to allow people to do the job that they do here in Belfast closer to home a couple of days a week. It will mean that they can have a better work-life balance and can spend their money in the local economy while they are there. It will also cut carbon emissions from transport in and out of Belfast. We want to ensure that the facilities are ones that people want to go into, so there will have to be investment in them to make sure that they have all the connectivity that they need and that the surroundings are conducive to attracting people to work in them. I ask the Member to engage with the officials involved and put the case for County Hall in Coleraine.

Roy Beggs: That concludes time for questions to the Minister of Finance. I invite Members to take their ease for a few moments until the Minister and Members are in the Chamber for the next item of business.

Question for Urgent Oral Answer — Health

Oxford-AstraZeneca Vaccine: Roll-out

Roy Beggs: Mr Colm Gildernew has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Health. I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should rise in their place continually to indicate that they still have a question to ask. The Member who tabled the question will be called automatically to ask the first supplementary question.

Colm Gildernew: Mr Gildernew asked the Minister of Health whether the ongoing roll-out of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is under consideration due to recent concerns expressed in other jurisdictions.

Robin Swann: As the House will know, the Northern Ireland health service administers COVID-19 vaccines under the expert direction of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The MHRA is the internationally respected UK regulatory body for medicines and approves vaccines for public use only when it is satisfied on grounds of safety and effectiveness. While my Department is aware of the decision of the public health authorities in some other jurisdictions to suspend the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine as a precautionary measure, I will, in this instance, again be led by MHRA experts. They are very clear that members of the public should continue to come forward for their vaccination. Despite what individual EU member states are doing, it is also important to remember that the statement issued by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) on Thursday said that the available evidence does not confirm an association with the vaccine. It is also very clear that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh any risks. The World Health Organization has also stated that countries should continue to use the vaccine.
I recognise, however, that any talk about the safety of vaccines can be very worrying. I want to take the opportunity to reassure everyone listening that the evidence, as reviewed by the MHRA, shows no correlation between the vaccine and the reported blood clot events. To date, 11 million doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine have been administered in the United Kingdom, including 310,000 doses in Northern Ireland. The evidence available from the UK's very large data set shows no unusual correlation between receiving the vaccine and the frequency at which blood clots occur naturally. I therefore urge the people of Northern Ireland to keep their appointments.
In line with the MHRA guidance, the roll-out of Northern Ireland's vaccination programme will continue. As you may now be aware, as of this morning, we have expanded the programme to everyone aged 50 years and over. I can confirm that, within the first three hours of today alone, a further 30,000 people booked a vaccine. That is very reassuring, and we should take it as an indication that the vast majority of the local population have confidence in the vaccine. We are now looking to add slots.
The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is helping to protect the most vulnerable in our community from COVID-19, saving lives and reducing hospitalisation levels. I urge everyone to look beyond the actions of others and have faith in the extensive evidence that the UK already has. The vaccine works, so I urge people to keep coming forward and ask all in the House to support me in that call.

Colm Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, Minister, for coming today and for your answer thus far. I am sure that the Minister shares my hope that everyone eligible will get and accept the vaccine when it gets to their cohort. I am delighted to say that I fall into the 50-to-59 age group, and I am one of the 30,000 who has booked a vaccine appointment for this week. I will be delighted and will ensure that it is an appointment that I will not miss.
Minister, what plans do you have to communicate the safety of the vaccine in order to maintain public confidence?

Robin Swann: The Chair of the Committee will know that I believe that actions speak louder than words. This morning, we saw the Chief Medical Officer come forward to take his vaccine. I now hear that the Chair of the Health Committee is going to take his vaccine. Those actions and displays of public confidence in the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine and the vaccination programme should be a sign to the people of Northern Ireland that the people who set this out are setting the example and taking the vaccine.
Unfortunately, I must say to the Chair that I do not fall into that cohort
[Laughter.]
However, I am looking forward to the stage when we can move down to the next age cohort. I can assure the Member that I will be in that line.

Pam Cameron: I very much welcome the fact that the Chair of the Health Committee has booked his vaccine. I hope that it will not clash with his Committee on Thursday morning.
It is an important question. I very much welcome the success of the vaccination roll-out in Northern Ireland. I am delighted that we are taking an evidence-based approach to the concerns about the vaccine. Obviously, both the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the European Medicines Agency have reiterated support for the AstraZeneca vaccine, highlighting that the benefits continue to greatly outweigh the risks. Does the Minister agree that politicians need to be mindful of their language and the effect it may have on public confidence? Politicians should not allow themselves to be dragged into any anti-vax arguments that could harm the uptake of the vaccine.

Robin Swann: I thank the Member for making that point. Today, I ask all Members to choose their words carefully. We are all laypeople, after all, and we must remember that the rash and uninformed words of some could have consequences and add fuel to the fire of the anti-vaxxers. The assessment of a vaccine's safety and efficacy is best left to the professionals and experts. That is why we have always followed the evidence-led advice that the Chair of the Health Committee rightly acknowledged.

Justin McNulty: I thank the Minister for coming before the House. As I said when I was speaking to you outside, Minister, I recognise and appreciate the huge success in the roll-out of the vaccination programme. That is a huge credit to all those involved in delivering it, and huge thanks should go to them. The security that the vaccine has given to so many people and families is phenomenal and cannot be overestimated.
Given the success of the vaccination programme roll-out, when do you and your Executive colleagues feel that you will be in a position to recommend the recommencement of youth and non-elite sports? It has been too long since too many children have had a ball in their hands or a puck at the end of their stick. Youth and non-elite sports need to recommence. When can that happen, given the success of the vaccination programme roll-out?

Robin Swann: I know that the Member is passionate about that. He will also know that the Executive are due to meet tomorrow to discuss regulations. I am sure that he knows that I do not make those discussions or any of our recommendations public until the Executive have had the chance to debate and decide on them as a whole.

Alan Chambers: Minister, it is perhaps disappointing that you have been called before the House this afternoon in what is undoubtedly a period when the demands on your time must be considerable.
It is clear that there is little evidence to suspend the current successful vaccination programme in the light of concerns that have been dismissed not only by all the local and national experts but by the World Health Organization. I can only guess at the major public concern that a suspension would cause the hundreds of thousands of our citizens who have already received their first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine. Will the Minister reassure all those who have availed themselves of the vaccine that there has been no evidence of anyone locally being placed at greater risk of developing blood clots as a result of receiving the Oxford vaccine and that, rather than being a cause of concern, there is only cause to celebrate the protection that it offers against the COVID virus?

Robin Swann: I thank the Member. He rightly acknowledged the statement from the World Health Organization, which has published a further statement today appealing to countries not to pause vaccination campaigns. It stated that its
"advisory panel was receiving reports relating to the shot and would release its findings at soon as possible",
but that it was "unlikely to change its recommendations". Its spokesperson also said:
"As of today, there is no evidence that the incidents are caused by the vaccine and it is important that vaccination campaigns continue so that we can save lives and stem severe disease from the virus".
On the public messaging, the MHRA was clear when it came back to a request from us yesterday following the decision of the Irish authorities. It stated that it was:
"closely reviewing reports but given the large number of doses administered, and the frequency at which blood clots can occur naturally, the evidence available does not suggest the vaccine is the cause."
The MHRA again advised people that they should still get their COVID-19 vaccine when asked to do so.

Paula Bradshaw: Minister, will you please outline whether your Department has carried out any research into how many lives would be put at risk if there was a delay in our vaccination programme?

Robin Swann: That is not information that I have readily to hand for the Member. One of the benefits that can be seen from the vaccination programme is the number of care homes that we are supporting through outbreaks. In February, the number was 150; today it is 14. We can already see the benefits of the vaccination programme. Unfortunately, with the noise that was created by the announcement yesterday, what was missed was that we reported zero deaths for those who had tested positive for COVID-19. That is a big step for us. We have not been able to make that announcement since October of last year, and it shows the direction of travel that we are taking. That is not just because of the regulations; having a vaccination programme is a direct benefit and correlation to that.

Clare Bailey: I thank the Minister for coming here today. Like Mr Gildernew, I fall into the bracket and welcome making the phone call to get my vaccination. If they offer me the AstraZeneca one, I will gladly and happily take it, as others in my family have done. Minister, if people are uncomfortable about taking that vaccine when they go for their vaccination, will they be able to request a different vaccine?

Robin Swann: There is no opportunity to pick and choose vaccines in our current programme. Due to the supplies of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, we are migrating some of our regional vaccination centres across to that vaccine, so there will be a dual process whereby some centres will run a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine while still running first doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.
I welcome the Member's commitment to and thankfulness for our vaccination programme. We should also acknowledge the large numbers of our health workers and volunteers who are coming forward to deliver this extensive programme across Northern Ireland.

Jim Allister: I congratulate the Department on the exemplary roll-out of vaccinations. We have heard much talk during COVID about the need for cross-border collaboration. Therefore, how and when did the Minister know that it turned out that the Republic of Ireland had issues with this vaccine?

Robin Swann: I thank the Member for his point. While not wanting to make a political issue out of the matter, the first that I became aware of it yesterday was through the media. I have asked my Chief Medical Officer to review the terms of the memorandum of understanding because it is disappointing that that is how we found out. When we took the decision to announce that we would continue, I communicated that to my counterpart in the Republic of Ireland, Stephen Donnelly, so that he knew of the steps that we were taking.

Jonathan Buckley: I thank the Minister for coming to the House today. I have been increasingly concerned about the amount of misinformation and, frankly, fake news that has been circulated in Europe about the AstraZeneca vaccine. It appears for some that we have moved from vaccine nationalism into the dangerous territory of vaccine jealousy.
I believe that, on Friday past, the Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, was in contact with AstraZeneca calling for more vaccinations. Will the Minister reiterate the clear, strong and consistent scientific and medical evidence surrounding the safety of the AstraZeneca vaccine? Will he agree that it is important that Governments tread carefully in politicising a particular vaccine, as that, sadly, will result only in further delay in getting that vaccination to constituents?

Robin Swann: I thank the Member for his comments. I will refer back to comments that I made from supporting commentary that has been received not just from the MHRA but from the World Health Organization advising countries not to pause vaccination campaigns because of the difficulty that that would bring and of the importance of vaccination campaigns continuing so that they can save lives and stem severe disease impacts from the virus.
The Member will be aware that, as I said in my opening comments, the European Medicines Agency has also given its consent to the use of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, but we have seen many political challenges from a number of nations regarding the utilisation of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. My Department and I have always been guided by the expert advice that comes from the MHRA, and that comes from the initial guidance that we got that the vaccines were right to use for the purposes that they were designed for and from the guidance on the intervals between the first and second doses. So far, the MHRA advice and guidance has stood us and the United Kingdom in good stead.

Carál Ní Chuilín: I thank the Minister for being here today. Is he aware of the number of cases of thrombosis that have been recorded since the start of the vaccination programme? I, too, am in that age bracket, and I will be getting my vaccination soon, hopefully, in Belfast. I have been offered the chance to go to Fermanagh, but there you go.

Robin Swann: I would not have believed that you are in that age group, Carál.
[Laughter.]
According to one of your colleagues, Fermanagh is a good day out for unionists
[Laughter.]
When the travel opportunity opens up, if she wants to go to Fermanagh for the vaccine, I am sure that they would be willing to support her.
With regard to her question, as of 14 March, the MHRA had received fewer than five reports of blood clots. As the Member will know, being a member of the Health Committee, fewer than five indicates a number that we cannot report.

Matthew O'Toole: I echo the words of those who underlined the importance of people signing up for their vaccination when the slots for their age group come up. Obviously, I am a couple of decades too young for that to happen yet, but I will not rub that in, Members. It is very important that, when we get called for the vaccine, we take it.
Today's news that booking is open to the over-50s is welcome. Can the Minister indicate by when, if that goes well, the entire adult population will have been offered a vaccine? I urge people to take whatever vaccine is available to them, whether that be Pfizer, AstraZeneca or anything else. Does the Minister have an update on when supplies of the other vaccines that are coming online, such as Johnson & Johnson, will arrive and be deployed in Northern Ireland?

Robin Swann: I thank the Member for his question. As I said in the initial update that I gave the House on the vaccination programme, in being part of the UK, we were part of the forward buying of seven different vaccines. At the minute, the MHRA has approved two: Oxford-AstraZeneca and Pfizer, so those are the two that we are using. We received a significant delivery last week, which has been dispatched around our GP centres and regional vaccination centres.
I am sure that the Member is aware that we hope to open, on the 29th of this month, another regional centre, at the SSE Arena. I hope that this will coincide with the greater availability of vaccine and our moving on to a different age cohort being eligible to be part of our vaccination programme, which, as the Member rightly indicates, is a great testament to the people working in the National Health Service and the volunteers who are coming forward.
Receiving 30,000 bookings in the first three hours after opening up to the over-50s shows confidence not just in the vaccines but in the programme that we are delivering.

Rachel Woods: I thank the Minister for coming to the House today and for his answers so far. I thank those involved in the roll-out of the vaccine. I am not in the new cohort but look forward to my turn.
I was contacted by a person currently in my constituency about access to the vaccine. From Scotland, he is in Northern Ireland temporarily and cannot return due to the restrictions. He is eligible for the vaccine because of his age. However, he has been told that he is not entitled to a temporary GP registration or vaccine appointment because he is a permanent resident of Scotland, not Northern Ireland. Can the Minister outline what advice I can give him so that he can get his first jab?

Robin Swann: I thank the Member for her question. We are seeing a number of peculiarities such as that case. If she wants to forward the specific details to my private office, we will get a response to her. However, the nature of our booking nature system is that we insist on anybody who wants to receive the vaccine having a medical insurance number. If there is anything that we can do between us and the rest of the UK, I would consider looking at that. However, no clear pathway is yet established to allow mutual support for individuals living in another jurisdiction.

Órlaithí Flynn: I thank the Minister for coming here and answering questions. I welcome the fact that the Minister is seeking to strengthen the memorandum of understanding with the South. Hopefully, he will not have to face those communication issues into the future. Will the Minister outline or detail what proposals he made, or intends to make, to Minister Donnelly to achieve a strengthening of the MOU?

Robin Swann: I thank the Member for her question. The Chief Medical Officers of both jurisdictions sign the MOU on the sharing of information, best practice and communication on our test, trace and protect systems. There is a mutual sharing of information. As I said before in the House, unfortunately, I was disappointed that we did not have at least some heads-up about the announcement that was made. There is still a challenge in sharing the passenger locator form data. That is now a serious issue. We have been continually raising that, and it is becoming an issue with those travelling from England, Scotland and Wales. People are travelling through Dublin Airport using the common travel area, and some are avoiding the process of quarantining in hotels that they are asked to adhere to.
Most of the ongoing conversation that we are having is productive and positive. However, the latest announcement showed a weakness, and I have asked the Chief Medical Officer to make sure that neither jurisdiction is blindsided by such announcements in future.

Roy Beggs: That concludes that item of business. I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments before we return to the debate on the Second Stage of the Severe Fetal Impairment Abortion (Amendment) Bill.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Assembly Business

Extension of Sitting

Alex Maskey: I have received notification from members of the Business Committee of a motion to extend the sitting past 7.00 pm under Standing Order 10(3A).
Resolved:
That, in accordance with Standing Order 10(3A), the sitting on Monday 15 March 2021 be extended to no later than 9.00 pm. — [Mr K Buchanan.]

Private Members' Business

Severe Fetal Impairment Abortion (Amendment) Bill: Second Stage

Debate resumed on motion:
That the Second Stage of the Severe Fetal Impairment Abortion (Amendment) Bill [NIA Bill 15/17-22] be agreed. — [Mr Givan.]

Alex Maskey: Before calling again the Member who was speaking previously in the debate on the Bill, I want to remind Members of a couple of remarks that I made earlier. Although I thought that the debate started appropriately, some tensions were beginning to emerge, and that was unfortunate. First, although I have shown Members some leniency in allowing them to set out the context, I remind them that this is a debate on the Severe Fetal Impairment Abortion (Amendment) Bill. It is not per se a general debate on the issue of abortion or, indeed, any of the issues related to it. Secondly, I said earlier that it is essential that Members respect the right of others with a differing view to be heard, no matter which side of the House they come from. If Members want to express their views, there is time to put their name down on the speaking list. What is not in order is for Members to make remarks from a sedentary position or to seek to interrupt others by abusing points of order. If Members can keep all of that in mind, we can resume the debate.

Paula Bradshaw: I will continue with my last point. I should add that people with disabilities should not be cast as a single community of like mind. As the Women's Resource and Development Agency (WRDA) puts it, it is as diverse as any other group. It is:
"a broad group with a diverse range of views"
that says:
"please do not use disability only when it suits your agenda".
I will move on to the issue of medical screening. It is worth noting that, at the Committee, when a question about screening was put to the Bill's sponsor, he had nothing to say about the ramifications for the future of antenatal care. That is an important practical issue. Screening is carried out by NHS England earlier than it is by Health and Social Care (HSC) in Northern Ireland. There is therefore the potential here for women not to be adequately informed about what is to follow, how to prepare and, depending on means, the differential impact.
Women who can travel to England for screening or pay for it in an independent hospital here for £320 will be at an advantage over those who cannot. That cannot be right, yet the Bill exacerbates the problem rather than solving it.
Professionals pointed out that effectively forcing a 23-week time limit on abortions in certain circumstances may lead to more abortions taking place rather than fewer. The Bill's sponsor evidently had no idea why that would be the case, but the answer should be obvious. We should not force women to make life-changing decisions in a rush and when there is limited support for those who choose to continue their pregnancy, about which the Bill does nothing. With limited support, what decisions are likely in such a scenario? The blunt reality is that the best people to judge what to do in cases of difficult diagnoses are the women, after they have taken advice from the professionals. It takes at least 18 years of training, learning and career progression to become a fetal medicine consultant. The Bill fundamentally attempts to interfere with a woman's right to choose, and, I repeat, forcing her to do something rather than supporting her.
I move on to commissioning. When asked which pro-life groups he had engaged with, the Bill's sponsor accepted the blunt reality that it was not many. Therefore, I do not know whether the proposer is aware that he is said to have guaranteed that commissioning abortion services will not be an outcome of the Bill.
The Bill claims to be about disability discrimination, but then it chooses, out of all the aspects of disability rights that it could have chosen, to be solely about abortion regulations. That not only brings into broad view the fact that it is the sponsor's party that stands in the way of a woman's right to choose but reinforces the failure of the Health Minister and the Assembly to commission health services. That failure is discriminatory against women and is another form of oppression.

Jim Allister: Will the Member give way?

Paula Bradshaw: I have a lot to get through; I might let you in later.
Ultimately, this legislation derives from Westminster, and there is a duty on the Secretary of State. There is a specific reason that commissioning is important and should be part of a Bill such as this. Legislating for commissioning would potentially enable a requirement for the Department to bring forward regulations, perhaps informed by a systems-wide review of maternity services by the RQIA or another regulatory body, to develop a robust framework for pregnant women who receive a diagnosis such as Down's. I have spoken to professionals who would have no objection to such a clear framework and, in fact, would welcome it. That could be informed by much of what the Don't Screen Us Out campaign is advocating.
The shameful situation in which vulnerable women are left to make horrendous choices without support could only be made worse by the Bill. When asked in Committee whether women who were seeking abortions would, as a result of the Bill, have to travel in some instances, again the sponsor gave no answer. That is, however, a likely practical outcome, as we have seen in the Republic. The sponsor specified that the Bill is not about condemning women, yet that is precisely what it does. It would condemn them by limiting their choices and risking ostracization if they chose to travel and force them to carry pregnancies to term without adequate support if they did not or could not travel. The Bill's sponsor accepted that point in Committee.
It must be emphasised that women in that position are entirely alone in every sense. They must book their own appointments in England, they must travel alone, they must seek their own information, and they must make their own decisions on who to involve and who not to involve. Probably the most crucial point is that they must ask for a post-mortem when they are there, because that allows for an enhanced care package for them for future pregnancies.
No one ever thinks that it will happen to them, but, for women, it can become a horrendous reality. Anyone in the Chamber could be in that position or have a family member in that position: alone, frightened and uncertain. The Bill creates more of that, not less, so it is absolutely about condemning women.
It is worth re-emphasising that the proposer said that the lack of support for women speaks to the issue, yet he has elected to do nothing about it. There are no guidelines, even about the language to be used, for example, about Down's diagnoses, and there is certainly no support available in it. To be clear again, such support does not exist and there is no budget for it. There is scant counselling available, with some trusts having psychologists and social workers on hand while others do not. Frankly, there is very little information aside from that provided by professionals, whom the proposer has chosen not to consult.
Nothing in the health or welfare system will be changed by the Bill, yet women will be forced to proceed with pregnancies regardless. If lack of support is the issue, why does the Bill do nothing about that? It bears repeating that it could do something about it. A Bill could require a framework of support for pregnant women who receive a severe fetal impairment diagnosis that sets out statutory obligations for social, financial and emotional support, not just through the pregnancy but throughout childhood and potentially beyond. Such legislation would be about supporting women to carry pregnancies to term, not forcing them to. Had the proposer engaged properly in public consultation or a call for evidence, that point would no doubt have been made. Yet again, we have to note that he elected not to call for evidence. For him, disability discrimination refers only to abortion, not to ensuring a lifelong pathway of support for families.
If we want to have an impact on this issue, we also need to pass legislation that is human rights compliant. Otherwise, it will simply be overturned. The question is whether we want to look like we are doing something or actually want to do something. The Bill, as it stands, falls into the former category. It will take people on an emotional journey and then fail to deliver on the promise, because it will be overturned and no difference will be made. It cannot be repeated enough that it speaks only to forcing women to carry the pregnancy to term, not supporting them to. Indeed, it offers no explicit support whatsoever.
We need to be clear that, had the sponsor been confident on this point, he would not have skipped the usual stages through which a private Member's Bill normally goes. Indeed, he was intent on proceeding quickly without taking the time to run a public consultation or to consult the Equality Commission or the Human Rights Commission, as would be the norm before proceeding to First Stage. He hoped to push this Bill through without proper consideration. We need to address why he was so keen to do that. Let us be clear that that is what he did. His justification that the abortion regulations were consulted on is a peculiar one, given that he also goes on to claim that the Bill is not about abortion but about disability discrimination. Let us remind ourselves that, if this were really about disability rights, he would have run a public consultation on how to ensure that people with Down's syndrome and other conditions could be and feel equally valued. Instead, without consulting, an ardent campaigner against trusting women just happened to present a Bill that focuses solely on abortion and specifically on forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term without support.
With regard to the human rights aspects of the Bill, it is reasonable to point to all the UN conventions, but, ultimately, the Bill focuses on regulations arising from just one. The 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women was agreed to by the UK Government in 1986. The 'Report of the inquiry concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women', chaired by Theresia Degener, was published in 2018. Its recommendations were in paragraphs 85 and 86. Section 9(1) of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 specifically requires the Secretary of State to ensure:
"the recommendations in paragraphs 85 and 86 of the CEDAW report are implemented".
So, the scope of the regulations is specified: they must implement paragraphs 85 and 86. Paragraph 85(b)(iii) states:
"Severe fetal impairment, including fatal fetal abnormality, without perpetuating stereotypes towards persons with disabilities and ensuring appropriate and ongoing support, social and financial, for women who decide to carry such pregnancies to term".
As noted, it is not always possible to distinguish between severe and fatal when these things are being considered in practice. That is absolutely not a licence to ignore the aspects of disability discrimination that many may legitimately feel are inherent here. However, it does demonstrate that the Bill, as introduced, will not accomplish the stated objective, not least because it breaches requirements in primary legislation from the UK Parliament. Even more importantly, we also need to emphasise, as the Chair of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities put it:
"Disability rights and gender equality are two components of the same human rights standard that should not be construed as conflicting".
She also notes that using the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, referred to by the proposer, in any effort to restrict or prohibit access to safe abortion:
"constitutes a misinterpretation of the Convention".
Therefore, the sponsor of the Bill has misinterpreted the convention. He also says that, in his opinion, the Bill is human rights compliant, but it is clear that that is a point of significant contention.
However, the key point is that, of all the things that the sponsor could have brought forward to ensure appropriate and ongoing social and financial support for women to decide to carry pregnancies to term in cases of severe fetal impairment, he has chosen to focus solely on forcing the woman to travel. As a result, the premise of the Bill rests on a misinterpretation. It is legislation that will be overturned because it is based on a false premise. The task is to present policy and legislation that is, as Theresia Degener said, a correct interpretation of the convention, which recognises that gender equality and disability rights are two sides of the same coin. This legislation is not it.
Ultimately, the question is about whether we are going to try to pass legislation, which will, inevitably, be judicially reviewed over whether the Assembly has the discretion to amend legislation that would run contrary to Westminster legislation, requiring the implementation of international human rights obligations, or —.

Jim Allister: Will the Member give way?

Paula Bradshaw: No, I will not.
Or, put simply, whether we are going to need another courageous woman to sort out intentionally muddied waters in our courts.
I return now to the remarkable absence of consultation on the Bill. It is standard practice for private Member's Bills to be publicly consulted on and for professionals to be involved in engagement and scrutiny. As we established in Committee, the sponsor could say only that he had a meeting with the GMC lined up subsequent to his appearance there, and he then went on to mention one individual but could not give any context as to who that person was. Therefore, he had put forward a Bill without any consultation with representative groups. That is not adequate for good legislation. He went on to add that the NIO had consulted on regulations on the entirety of abortion law, but he said that the Bill is not about abortion but disability discrimination. A Bill that is focused on disability discrimination requires a focused consultation about disability discrimination, not a reliance on a consultation that was fundamentally broader and about a different subject.
I repeat that I am highly sympathetic to finding ways, urgently, to provide greater support to women facing complexities in pregnancy to remove disability discrimination, but, regardless of Members' views on the issue, we need to consider whether it is adequate to pass legislation, even in general principles form, upon which there was no public consultation, no engagement with representative bodies or broad campaign groups, no understanding of the likely practical outcomes, and no evidence of consideration of alternatives which may achieve the objective more readily. Is ill-considered legislation, which is likely to be deemed to be unlawful in the courts, the best that we can do in this Chamber?
There are those who will demonstrate their interest only for political gains and create division by arguing that raising clear objections to the Bill, which is incompatible with existing law and about forcing women to do things rather than supporting them, is, somehow, anti-disability. In doing so, they are demonstrating that they are interested not in delivery but in playing to emotions and divisions for electoral gain. We do not advance disability rights by pitting one set of rights against another, by presenting a Bill that happens to be solely about abortion or by engaging only with those whom we feel comfortable engaging with. Nevertheless, we should not ignore the Don't Screen Us Out campaign. There may be an opportunity to use the debate to achieve most of the campaign objectives. Unlike the sponsor, I have consulted widely on this, and I was struck by the words of one campaigner, who put the objective very clearly: there is a time limit on non-fatal abnormalities, and we are asking for that to be extended to Down's syndrome.
The sponsor raised a relevant issue in Committee regarding the need to avoid pejorative language, although, again, I note that he had not consulted with the healthcare professionals. Having engaged with many fetal medical consultants, I feel that the claim around abortion being mentioned in the same sentence as a diagnosis of Down's is questionable in Northern Ireland. It does not do justice to the extremely sensitive way in which our highly trained medical specialists approach the issue.
Again, I am concerned that legislation has been allowed to reach this stage without front-line healthcare workers having been engaged in any meaningful way whatsoever, and we need to reflect on why an attempt would be made to push legislation through various stages without such engagement and scrutiny.
Ultimately, the proposer refers, with justification, to the need to change societal attitudes to Down's. Yet again, we have to ask why he has presented a Bill that does precisely nothing about it. I think that there may be a way to accomplish that fairly, and I continue to take soundings on whether and how an appropriate way can be found. We need to avoid a conflict about which rights predominate and instead recognise the need for the highest human rights standards that deliver respect, recognition and justice for all.
In conclusion, during the pandemic we have come to trust and even literally applaud our medical professionals. So, while every organisation will have different views, let us consider exactly what the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has to say on this issue:
"Removing these provisions in law will ultimately prevent a patient-centred, individualised approach to care for women who may already be distressed, ignore the clinical complexity of severe fetal impairment and result in women travelling to Great Britain to access healthcare".
If we consider these words carefully, we see that the Bill will prevent a patient-centred approach for distressed women, ignore clinical complexity, and result in women travelling for healthcare. Whatever the objectives of the Bill, these will be the outcomes if it becomes law. I have to ask of each of you: are you comfortable with those outcomes?
In closing, therefore, let me put on record two essential points. I want to see commissioning of abortion services that includes reference to the importance for support to enable mothers to make fully informed choices about whether to take pregnancy to term. What I do not want to see, however, is the Assembly endorsing a Bill designed to force women to do something rather than to support them to do something. Not least in the week that we have just had, I urge Members to reflect carefully on that.

Pam Cameron: I am grateful for the powerful words of colleagues from across the House who have set out why this Bill is crucial to tackling discriminatory attitudes towards disability, and I want to add my very special thanks to disability campaigners Heidi and Liz Crowter and Lynn Murray of Don't Screen Us Out, who gave evidence to the Health Committee last week; Ailis Cullinan Keown, mum to Tess, whose blog Little Hands speaks to the need for this Bill far more eloquently than I ever could; Ciara Smyth, mother to Jacob and founder of the Northern Irish charity, Joy 21; and many more who have given painful personal testimony as to the need for this Bill.
At this point, I want to thank my colleague Paul Givan MLA for his work in introducing this private Member's Bill and for the great efforts to ensure that the voices of people with disabilities are heard loud and clear by the Assembly. These disability campaigners have schooled us on the richness and the joy that people with disabilities bring to their families and the wider community, and I hope that this is a lesson that we will think deeply on.
Today we have an opportunity to work together to ensure that our laws better reflect that truth. We should not need to be reminded that the value of an individual is not reliant on their possessing a particular physical characteristic, but hearing the stories from parents who, at the birth of their child, have been met with silence or have received expressions not of congratulations but of sorrow tells us that we have quite some way to go. I commend Joy 21, which is doing fantastic work and providing resources to new and expectant parents whose child has a diagnosis of Down's syndrome to ensure that they receive the warmest welcome, a welcome shaped by the voices, the stories and the encouragement of those who themselves have Down's syndrome and their families.
The regulation that permits abortion up to birth in the case of non-fatal disability should never have been made. The Disability Rights Commission, now the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has said of the equivalent disability selective abortion provision in the 1967 Act that it:
"is offensive to many people; it reinforces negative stereotypes of disability ... is incompatible with valuing disability and non-disability equally".
It concerns me greatly that, some 30 years after that provision was introduced in Great Britain, we have simply reiterated those negative stereotypes here.
We must fully comprehend the shadow that is thrown over these children's lives when one of the very first conversations that their parents have with their antenatal teams is about termination. Sadly, as others said, the impact does not stop there. One woman in England spoke out on social media recently about her experience of being asked at a hospital appointment why she chose not to terminate Betsy, her daughter, who was, by that point, three years old. It is appalling that people with certain non-fatal disabilities and their families must continually justify their very existence. Their lives are as valuable as everyone else's. Their lives matter.
Voting in favour of the Bill makes it plain to all that the harmful stereotypes that are perpetrated in conversations that suggest that life with certain disabilities is not worth living do not and should not have any place in our society. Screening for disabilities with the purpose of not providing the best possible tailored care but of offering terminations is deeply unethical. Those children are not a risk; they are a joy. Some have suggested that the Bill may pressure women into taking decisions too quickly in order to evade the 24-week limit. They have spoken of late diagnoses at 20 weeks or more. That misses the point entirely. No one should be pressing women to have a termination for non-fatal disability at any stage of pregnancy. Women need to be provided with unbiased information about their child's diagnosis in order to reassure them that they and their child can thrive.
I am very conscious, in the context of the pandemic, of our duty to ensure that people with disabilities have all the support that they need to thrive. That has never been clearer. A recent survey that was conducted by Disability Action highlights significant concerns among people with disabilities and their families regarding the ability to access support during the pandemic and in the longer term. I am aware that a number of schools for children with special educational needs have been struggling to remain open for full-time education. We must listen to those with disabilities and ensure that improvements are made in those areas. The Bill is one such opportunity to do that, and I hope that there will be more.
More than 1,500 people with Down's syndrome and their families have signed an open letter that gives us a very clear message. Regarding regulation 7(1)(b), they say:
"This is discrimination and will likely have a devastating impact on the community of people with Down's syndrome."
They have called on us to vote for the Bill. My constituency office in South Antrim has received hundreds of emails, letters and calls from constituents urging the same. I know that every Member will also have received many such calls. I ask Members to join me in responding to their call.

Michelle O'Neill: I am taking the unusual step today of contributing to the debate in my role as an MLA as opposed to that of joint First Minister. I am doing so because I want to signal my deep unease about the narrow focus of the legislation.
I will start by stating the obvious: women are entitled to modern and compassionate healthcare. That is currently being denied to women here in the North. The private Member's Bill that is being debated today does nothing to address the immediate need to deal with that deficit in compassionate healthcare for women. In fact, I believe that the sponsor of the Bill is focused on rolling back legislation and progress that has been made while ignoring the failure to provide the essential services that are the direct outworking of the very same legislation that he is attempting to amend. I also have no doubt, just to call a spade a spade, that this is the thin end of the wedge. It is attempting to reopen a debate that has already been had on women's healthcare provision.
Over recent weeks, Members have, rightly, been outraged, disgusted and angered by the revelations of how women, babies and children were treated across this island by the state and religious institutions. That injustice and cruelty continued because people and women's voices were not heard. Is anybody going to tell us that that should continue to be allowed to happen? I am here today to give a voice to those women who find themselves in incredibly difficult and very vulnerable circumstances. The DUP, alongside the UUP Health Minister, is failing women by refusing to commission the services that were legislated for. They have failed to put in place modern, compassionate and accessible healthcare services. Those are still being denied to women day and daily, which, at this stage, is so long after the legislation was enacted.

Paul Givan: Will the Member give way?

Michelle O'Neill: No, thank you. Women are entitled to compassionate healthcare. It is a human right to have compassionate healthcare. For that reason, the focus of the Assembly should be on how we commission services for women who need them, when they need them. That should be the focus and priority of the Assembly. Therefore, we will abstain from the vote on the Second Stage of the Bill.

Joanne Bunting: At the outset, I express my sadness at the passing of Professor Jim Dornan and send my condolences and sympathy to the family that he leaves behind.
I welcome the Severe Fetal Impairment Abortion (Amendment) Bill introduced by Paul Givan. His Bill is in line with a motion that I brought to the Assembly on 2 June last year, in that it seeks to amend one element of the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, namely regulation 7(1)(b) which allows abortion up to birth in circumstances where:
" if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental impairment as to be seriously disabled."
At present, regulation 7 covers all disabilities: those referred to as fatal and non-fatal. This allows for abortion in the very difficult cases where a baby has a disability that is likely to be fatal before or shortly after birth. Under Paul's proposed Bill, there will be no grounds for an abortion on the basis that the baby has a non-fatal disability. As I said in the debate last June, in Great Britain, the equivalent section of the Abortion Act 1967, schedule 1 (1)(d), has been interpreted to allow for abortion up to term for conditions such as Down's syndrome, cleft palate and club foot. In England and Wales, we know from the statistics that abortions on the grounds of cleft palate, cleft lip or club foot — all conditions that can be addressed through surgery — are deemed to meet the threshold of seriously disabled, and they do happen. In 2018, in England and Wales, 3,269 abortions were undertaken because of fetal abnormality. These are known as ground E cases. The commentary on the statistics says:
"it is likely there is still a significant undercount presented in the ground E notification tables in this publication, so overall figures related to ground E notifications should be treated with caution."
Of these figures to be treated with caution, 618 abortions were when Down's syndrome was identified, and 18 of those were conducted after 24 weeks, the gestation limit for other types of abortion. It is highly likely that a similar interpretation will be adopted here in Northern Ireland. Regulation 7 is the only ground where the decisions are taken on the basis of a diagnosis made of the baby, and it allows for abortion up to birth. Regulation 7(1)(b) affords greater protection to viable human beings in the womb who are deemed to be without a disability than to viable human beings in the womb who have non-fatal disabilities. It is clearly saying that viable human beings with non-fatal disabilities and conditions are worthy of less protection under the law than viable human beings who are deemed to be able-bodied. In turn, it clearly says that people with Down's syndrome or other disabilities are of less value than people without disabilities.
This is completely unacceptable in 2021. Again, I ask the question: why would we ever countenance the disability discrimination that the Westminster Parliament was persuaded to vote for 30 years ago? That happened in 1990, before the advent of disability discrimination legislation and before the UK became a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
I am sure that Members know the lovely Heidi Crowter. She is a brave young woman with Down's syndrome. She describes the current law as offensive and hurtful. This law is not only offensive, it is regressive and discriminatory.
In the past 30 years, like every jurisdiction in the UK, Northern Ireland has introduced legal protections for individuals with disabilities. Those laws aim to foster equality and ensure that individuals with disabilities are treated equally to everyone else. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 protects the rights of persons with disabilities. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 placed a statutory duty on public authorities to:
"have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity"
for persons with a disability. The Disability Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 further amended the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to include a requirement that public authorities promote: "positive attitudes towards disabled persons". In 2009, the UK as a whole ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Those laws reflect the fact that every person, regardless of their ability or so-called disability, is of value and worth. The Bill seeks to illustrate that those with disabilities are equal to everyone else, inside or outside the womb.
I remind Members that, in 2017, in its report on Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities stated:
"The Committee is concerned about perceptions in society that stigmatize persons with disabilities ... and about the termination of pregnancy at any stage on the basis of fetal impairment ... The Committee recommends that"
Great Britain "amend its abortion law accordingly."
Make no mistake: regulation 7(1)(b) of the 2020 regulations mirrors the very same legislation that the UN CRPD rejected. It fundamentally perpetuates stereotypes against individuals with disabilities.
In our deliberations today, we also have to bear in mind the cross-border dimension when considering the impact of that particular regulation. It seems from the explanatory memorandum on the current regulations that cross-border considerations, rather than the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), were the primary consideration in Westminster wanting to free itself from dealing with women from Northern Ireland who travelled to England for abortions.
The Government, as ever when it suits them, seem to forget, however, that there is another border. It is my understanding that, in the Republic of Ireland, a woman cannot get an abortion up to birth on the basis of Down's syndrome or any other non-fatal disability. The regulations mean that we have a situation in which women from the Republic of Ireland are able to travel across the border to here to obtain an abortion on the basis of any serious disability right up to term. The regulations may have an impact on our neighbouring jurisdiction and the way in which people in the Republic view disability. I am aware that some TDs have already expressed real concern about the impact on attitudes to disability in the Republic.
If we do not pass the Bill, we are signalling to every person with a disability that their life is valued differently from that of others. Hannah Wilson, who is a young women with Down's syndrome from County Fermanagh, pointed out:
"I felt very sad when this was explained to me, it feels so wrong ... The law should not treat some people differently from others."
Hannah's mother, along with the mothers of Eliab, Nathan, Aaron, Darren and Sara, and many other parents from Northern Ireland, all agree that their children should be treated as being of equal value to any other child. Hannah's parents said:
"We are angered by the very notion that a life, however different, is viewed by some as expendable because it is deemed as less than perfect."
It is also important that we consider the kind of society that we are creating for pregnant women and mothers. Do we want them to be questioned as to why they will not terminate their pregnancy, as was the experience of one mother recently, or do we want to create a society in which people with disabilities are protected and valued? The Bill is about protecting women like Emma Mellor, whom Mrs Barton has already mentioned, who, at 24 years old, described feeling under pressure to abort her daughter, Jamie, throughout her pregnancy. Emma said that she and her husband:
"were offered 15 terminations, even though we made it really clear that it wasn't an option for us ... they really seemed to push and really seemed to want us to terminate."
The doctors made it very clear to her that, even at 38 weeks pregnant, if she changed her mind on the morning of the induction, she should let them know because it would not be too late. Until her baby had literally started travelling down the birth canal, she therefore could still have terminated her pregnancy.
We are trying to protect women like Rachel Mewes, who describes how she was pressured to consider having a late-term abortion at seven months, despite previously stating repeatedly that she would never terminate for Down's syndrome. She describes herself as having PTSD as a result of this experience. She said, "Being forced to imagine someone killing Betsy nearly destroyed me". The Bill will protect such women so that they do not have to fight for the right of their child to live and will not be pressured by medical professionals. The Bill will uphold their child's right to life.
Last June, I quoted Lord Shinkwin. His words are just as relevant now as they were then. He said:
"I utterly reject this medical mindset that clings to the idea that a disabled baby is a medical failure to be eradicated through abortion. I beg no one for my equality. I know I have as much right as anyone to be alive."
Disability Rights UK, commenting on Lord Shinkwin's Bill, said:
"fundamentally it is about equality. Wherever Parliament sets the number of weeks after which abortion is not permitted, it should be exactly the same whether the pregnancy is likely to result in a disabled or a non-disabled child. All lives are equal."
As I said last year:
"We cannot and must not separate the regulations from the people to whom they would apply. "— [Official Report (Hansard), 2 June 2020, p62 col 1].
Members may not, on the one hand, promote equality for the disabled and, with the other hand, vote to have them aborted. These positions are incongruous. Either those with disabilities are equal, or they are not. If they are equal outside the womb, they are equal inside the womb. To my mind, they are equal.
Let us be clear: without question, regulation 7 unavoidably perpetuates stereotypes against individuals with disabilities. Any person with a disability, looking at when an unborn baby can be legally aborted, will recognise that their life is valued differently to others.
I want to remind the House of the words of Heidi Crowter last summer, before the regulations were approved. She said:
"‘My life has as much value as anyone else’s."
She recently said:
"This Northern Ireland law at the moment makes me feel less valuable."
Heidi's previous intervention on the matter gave rise to a very moving piece on Sky News Australia. That reminds us that, as we approach the subject, we are not only being watched by our constituents and neighbours in the Republic but being watched by other parts of the world.
We now have an opportunity to change the law and uphold the rights of those born with a disability and at the preborn stage of their lives. Let us seize it with both hands. In the words of one mother:
"The right to life of a person with Down's syndrome should never be questioned simply because of a chromosomal variation. My daughter is meant to be here on this planet, and nobody has the right to suggest otherwise."
That is the message that we must send to people with disabilities: we value their lives equally to those whom we describe as able-bodied.
None of us knows for how long we will be here but, for long as I am, I will stand for the unborn and the disabled. I will certainly support the Bill, which gives effect to the motion that I tabled last June and that encompasses the Sinn Féin amendment to that motion. I urge all Members to do likewise and, in so doing, send out the signal, loudly and clearly, that there is no place for disability discrimination in Northern Ireland in 2021 and that Northern Ireland continues to be a country where disabled people are valued.

Colm Gildernew: I will make some initial remarks on behalf of the Health Committee outlining the Committee's consideration of the Bill before speaking as my party's health spokesperson.
The Committee first considered the Bill at its meeting on 18 February, just after its introduction at First Stage. As the proposer outlines, the Bill seeks to remove the ground for an abortion in cases of severe fetal impairment.
At its meeting on 18 February, the Committee agreed to write to the Human Rights Commission to seek the commissioners' views on the Bill's compatibility with human rights. On 11 March, the proposer of the Bill, with representatives of the Don't Screen Us Out organisation, briefed the Committee on the principles of the Bill. A number of questions were put to the proposer and witnesses. Members asked about the consultation undertaken, statistical information around services, screening and inequalities, and the provision of supports and services following screening, before the proposer introduced the Bill. Following the briefing, the Committee agreed that it would not take a position on the principles of the Bill.
I will now make some remarks as Sinn Féin spokesperson for health. The right to access compassionate and legal personal healthcare, which the DUP seeks to deny, is a right that belongs to all, and no political party or political body should move to undermine or exclude anyone from that right. At no time in the Assembly have we seen evidence of the DUP fighting for an extension of rights to anyone. It fought against language rights, it opposed marriage equality, and now it seeks to deny women's rights to access safe and legal healthcare services for themselves and their families.
In 2017, the United Nations found the British Government guilty of grave and systemic violations of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Members will remember 2017 also to be the year that the DUP entered into the confidence-and-supply arrangements to form a Government with the same Conservative Party that oversaw those violations.
Is it the case that disability rights are right for the DUP only when it is politically expedient? As the DUP attempts to undermine women's right to access legally entitled health services, the Minister of Health has refused to commission those same healthcare services, and women, again, are suffering as a result. This DUP private Member's Bill does not distract anyone from the fact that the Minister of Health has the responsibility and the power to provide those healthcare services for women.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Colm Gildernew: I will not. He has failed to do so despite the change in the law almost two years ago. Members, we cannot continue to force women to go on long, torturous and expensive journeys to England and elsewhere to seek the healthcare that they need and to which they are entitled. It is inhumane treatment and should not be allowed to continue in light of the current legal position.
I support my colleagues in Sinn Féin who will bring forward a proposal to the Executive this week to ensure that the healthcare services so desperately needed by many women are delivered.

Sinead McLaughlin: I rise in genuine sadness to debate this amendment Bill. This day last week, I joined many of my female MLA colleagues across the House to celebrate International Women's Day. We discussed issues relating to gender equality, gender barriers and the impact on women of COVID. All that any of us really want is a society that is fair and level. Today, we stand in this Assembly asking Members to roll back on the rights of women's health. What a roller coaster of a week we have had.
Like many others, I was saddened at the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Sarah Everard. I joined in the calls to reclaim our streets and, like many others, was disillusioned and angry at the police response on Saturday evening. Women still receive second-class treatment in our society. Make no mistake: the attempt to roll back on women's health rights in the Assembly today hurts me to the core as I fear that there is a reluctance in our society to trust and treat women fairly and to afford them dignity and respect.
Like many Members, I celebrated Mother's Day yesterday. Mother's Day can be poignant and reflective for those of us who have lost our mum. This year, as a result of COVID, many of us could not celebrate with our families.
I spent yesterday preparing for the debate. I thought about my mum a lot. My mum died 12 years ago. Yesterday, I thought about her, motherhood and how the world treats mothers and women, both past and present. In the 1960s, a few years after I was born, my mum gave birth to a full-term stillborn baby boy. He died a few minutes before birth. He was not given the dignity of a church burial, and he was buried in an unmarked grave. My mother never really knew exactly where he was buried. I tell this story, and there are many others like it, because it happened in my lifetime.
Respect for a women's reproductive journey has always been resisted. It has always been challenged and is full of contradictions in this country. Sex, birth control and the actual physical process of giving birth were no-go areas for discussion and were, often, conflated with guilt, sin and judgement, rather than natural acts of love and compassion. Taking control of one's reproductive rights as part of their health and mental well-being is a choice that is not afforded to all women in the world today.
Back in the early 1960s, my mum could not even attend my christening as she had to remain at home for four to six weeks after she gave birth. My mum had to be "churched" after childbirth. "Churching" refers to a ritual or blessing as an act of cleansing mothers following recovery from childbirth. Only married women were eligible for that blessing. My mum said that many women felt the stigma of being labelled as "tainted" or "dirty" after going through the, often difficult but no-less-life-affirming, joy of childbirth. I tell that story of churching because, shockingly, it is one of the least extreme examples of how society tried to control female behaviour by imposing restrictive rules and beliefs on women's reproductive rights. Again, that happened in my lifetime. The swinging sixties they were not. Women being in control of their reproductive rights was forbidden. Family sizes were testament to that.
I am glad that life has moved on. However, there is still a long way to go. Issues of gender equality and reproductive rights are still set in the past. It is up to this generation of political leaders to ensure that we challenge society and, particularly, public policy and legislation that continue to try to control and limit women's choices. I want to help women. It is time for us all to trust and believe in women. This amendment Bill does not help women. It does not contribute to the progressive, inclusive and equal society that I want for my daughters, Aoife and Clare, and the next generation.
Abortion is an essential component of women's healthcare. I do not deny — absolutely not — that the topics that are being raised here are incredibly sensitive. However, I take issue with the misleading language that is being used by many proponents of the Bill. It is important to state for the record that I have met many people who are pro-choice, but I have yet to meet anyone who is pro-abortion.
Let me talk specifically to that amendment. First, it is important to establish that abortions in cases of severe fetal impairment occur in extremely rare cases. Abortions that were beyond 24 weeks accounted for just 0·1% of the total number of abortions that were carried out in England and Wales in 2019. These abortions are carried out in cases where very severe, complex abnormalities that would shorten life or cause significant lifelong disability are detected. Women must undergo multiple tests, and a multidisciplinary team of obstetricians, midwives, genetic doctors etc are all involved in the decision-making process. As with all medical procedures, their care is patient-centred, and that array of clinicians would not take lightly a termination of pregnancy at such a late stage. To suggest otherwise, my friends, is quite frankly an insult to the medical profession.
Cleft lip diagnoses are often disingenuously brought up in this debate, yet there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the claim that women have abortions for less severe fetal impairments at such a late stage of pregnancy. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says that that simply is not true. Given that we are discussing such sensitive issues, I believe that we all have a responsibility to ensure that the debate is grounded in factual evidence. Moreover, we should take stock of the learning from the Republic of Ireland's abortion legislation, which only provides for fatal fetal impairment, not severe fetal impairment. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has outlined a key issue with it, namely that it is not always possible to clearly distinguish between a severe and a fatal fetal impairment. A recent study of still births and neonatal deaths found that less than half of abnormalities could be classified as fatal fetal abnormalities, yet all were fatal.
Fetal medicine specialists point out that the legislation is too restrictive as it forces women to travel to access abortion care for conditions that are deemed not quite fatal enough, even when the fetus is not going to survive. Women will receive a devastating diagnosis only to be told that their doctor cannot provide the healthcare that they need. As a result of this flawed legislation, at least one woman a day continues to travel from the Republic of Ireland to Great Britain for abortion, denied access to family support or proper aftercare. Dr Alyson Hunter, a fetal medicine specialist, has spoken about the further trauma that that inflicts on patients and their families when they are already going through difficult pregnancies. This, I am afraid, is the harsh reality of restricting access to abortion for severe fetal abnormality, and it is dreadful that this Bill seeks to follow the same pathway and continues to export our women and girls. We should, therefore, avoid replicating the failings of the Republic's legislation and instead provide comprehensive and compassionate abortion care.
The human rights implications of the Bill must be thoroughly interrogated. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women found that our previous abortion laws had resulted in human rights violations, and it subsequently made a range of recommendations, including that legislation should expand grounds to legalise abortion in cases of severe fetal impairment. Notably, that is compatible with the requirements under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which states that rights begin at birth. Amnesty International also highlights that forcing someone to carry an unwanted pregnancy is a violation of human rights, including the rights to privacy and bodily autonomy.
Our abortion legislation is required to be compliant with human rights and with CEDAW, yet it is clear that the Bill does not meet those requirements. CEDAW also recommended that abortion services and abortion access be expanded in tandem with ensuring appropriate and ongoing social and financial support for women who decide to carry such pregnancies to term, and that passage sticks out to me. It is clear that we have a long way to go until women and children, especially those with disabilities, are adequately supported.
In my constituency of Foyle, we need only cast our minds back to 2016, when it was revealed that there was a multimillion-pound black hole in the Western Trust's disability services. Those vital services had £8 million rerouted to other departments. Then we had the chronic underfunding of the Northern Ireland Hospice and the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice, which require £16 million to deliver their services each year. In 2019, only £4 million of that was funded by government. That is just a quarter of the necessary funding. That pattern of underfunding is replicated across the North.
I am sure that other Members are regularly contacted by constituents who raise the inadequate disability support services, lack of paid employment opportunities as well as the barriers to accessing healthcare, education, housing and benefits. COVID has heightened that inequality further, with people with disabilities being utterly abandoned. Parents are being denied contact with their children who are in supported accommodation, advances in speech therapy have been lost after a year of isolation and families are in complete and utter turmoil because of the pressures that they face without respite.
Those stories are utterly distressing, and they reflect the issues that are being faced on a daily basis. Yet, interestingly, they are often met with tumbleweed from many of those supporting the Bill. In fact, I will point out to certain parties that their support of welfare reform has further entrenched the systemic discrimination that people with disabilities face. We need to support the living. Given that we have heard much talk about the need to create a rights-based culture, I urge Members to take heed of the following statement from Disabled Women Ireland:
"social and financial support to disabled people and their parents is the strongest way to deal with concerns for disability rights. Recognising the full extent of disabled people's rights from infancy to old age – to education, to early childhood support, to personal assistance – will make meaningful changes to the quality of disabled people's everyday lives. Restrictions on abortion will only place further restrictions on the reproductive rights and freedoms of people with disabilities."
I emphasise how important it is that we allow women to have bodily autonomy. We must trust women to make the decision that is right for them. No woman reaches a late-stage pregnancy, having formed a parental bond, only to flippantly choose to have an abortion without deep deliberation. Very complex, serious abnormalities are detected at only a 20-week scan or even later during what are often much-wanted pregnancies. My heart goes out to all the women who are faced with the heartbreaking decision of whether to carry such pregnancies to term.

Paula Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Sinead McLaughlin: Yes.

Paula Bradshaw: Will the Member agree that it is not just the women who feel that pain gravely but the men?

Sinead McLaughlin: And the wider families. I agree totally.
Very emotive language has been used in the debate. I widely respect the variety of feelings that have been expressed, but, to be honest, it is not your emotions or, indeed, my emotions, that matter. It is the emotions of the woman who has to make an extremely difficult decision about whether she can progress with a pregnancy after being given a distressing medical diagnosis. It is, therefore, vital that the Health Minister commission services that will support women in making informed decisions that are based on their health and the wider circumstances.
Let me be very clear: this Bill is an overreaction to an extremely small number of abortions. It politicises the personal choices that women are forced to make in extremely difficult circumstances.
In my constituency office in Foyle, I have an inspirational quote from Malala:
"I raise up my voice — not so I can shout but so that those without a voice can be heard ... we cannot succeed when half of us are held back."
This Bill seeks to hold back women by taking away their choice. I cannot support that and I will vote against it.

Robbie Butler: At the very start of my contribution, I take the opportunity to alert the Chamber to the fact that it is World Down Syndrome Day on 21 March — this Sunday. Unfortunately, we will not be in the position to light up the Building on the day or have a debate for those who have Down's syndrome, but I am sure that Members will join me in wishing all those with Down's syndrome a very special day on Sunday 21 March.
I am pleased to add my voice to those who have spoken strongly in support of the Bill that has been tabled by Mr Paul Givan from Lagan Valley. For the record, I am speaking on my own behalf, because abortion is a matter of conscience for the Ulster Unionist Party. I would like to echo the words of many, but not all, the Members who have spoken before me. I pass on my gratitude to and acknowledge the incredible work of Heidi Crowter, who will celebrate a very special day on 21 March. For Heidi to have the courage to advocate for the rights of those who, like her, have Down's syndrome but live in another part of the United Kingdom speaks of a great commitment and determination that we should honour and affirm.
The reality is that, unless the Bill passes, it is possible that, at some point in the future, we will be left in the very sad situation that there are no longer people like Heidi in our society. That, in my opinion, would be an absolute tragedy. It is clear that the Bill deals with disability discrimination. That is what a lot of the debate has missed; it is about one aspect of the legislation. As the chairperson of the all-party group on disability, I believe that it is of fundamental importance for me and the Assembly to take a stand against disability discrimination. It is our responsibility to promote equality and ensure that people with disabilities, including babies, have their whole persons recognised and their capabilities and dignity respected.
If left unamended, the abortion regulations that were forced on us by Westminster last year will have devastating consequences — I have heard the word "devastating" used a number of times in the Chamber but not in relation to the devastating impact that abortion has on the unborn child — leaving our society bereft of diversity and the unique qualities that those with disabilities contribute. However, crucially, that is within the power of the Assembly to change. In 2021, we should not permit laws like regulation 7(1)(b) to exist. We should remove them and support people like Heidi and their families. That is a point that most Members made. There is much work that we need to do to support those with disabilities and their families and allow them to enjoy their lives to the fullest. We should create a society that delights in them. That is the kind of society that I want to be part of.
The statistics from England and Wales that we have debated today are shocking and provide a worrying indication of how things are likely to develop in Northern Ireland if we do not amend the law. Some have referred to an indicative outcome of a 0·9% increase. When you look at the fact that there are upwards of 250,000 to 300,000 abortions a year, even 1% or 0·9% is an incredible number. It is not just a number; it is a life.
According to the 2018 national abortion statistics for England and Wales, there were 618 abortions on grounds of Down's syndrome. That figure, which is likely to be an underestimate, is far greater than the number of babies with Down's syndrome who were allowed to be born in 2018. When you look at the choice that is made — it is a difficult choice; it absolutely is — it is clear that we need to do more to support the mothers in that instance. The direction of travel is clear.
We also need to be very careful about the outdated stigma and stereotypes that a law like this could perpetuate. That was summed up best by Sara McNeill, mother to Tommy, a wonderful boy with Down's syndrome from Ballymena. Some Members will have seen him lately. She said:
"I would urge any parent faced with the decision of what to do, not to be blinded by poor, outdated preconceptions of what Down’s syndrome is. I thought our outlook seemed bleak when our doctor first shared her suspicions about our brand new baby, but now I know better."
If you have seen the videos and the singing, they are just marvellous. If you have not seen them, I ask you to look at them.
As has been pointed out by others today, the present law sends out the message that people with disabilities are less worthy of protection than those living without disabilities. Earlier, Paul Givan said that the current law tells those with disabilities that they are worth less, that their contribution is less valuable and that their lives are less valuable and less full. Is that really a message that we want to send out at the end of this day? For anyone who suggests that that is not the message that the law sends out, I remind them that, when asked about the current law, Heidi responded that allowing abortion up to birth on the basis of non-fatal disabilities:
"makes me feel that I am not as valued as anyone else."
I also remind Members of the words of Hannah Wilson, a young woman from County Fermanagh. She said:
"I felt very sad when this was explained to me ... The law should not treat some people differently from others."
She just wants to be treated the same.
These are people whose lives and perception of self are profoundly impacted on by this law. Imagine if it were you or your son or daughter who was confronting the fact that, because of a diagnosis, viable human beings with the same condition would no longer be entitled to the same right to life as those without that condition. How would that make any of us feel? I use the word "diagnosis" very reluctantly, because Down's syndrome and conditions like it are not diseases. We need to see those people's ability, not focus on their so-called disability.
I remind the Assembly of the debate that we had here on 2 June 2020, when, in two separate votes, 75 out of the 90 Members made it clear that they did not support abortion on the grounds of non-fatal fetal disability. On that occasion, our votes could not change the law. By voting for the Bill before us today, we can take the first steps in the process of translating that vote into an actual change in law that is not imposed on us by Westminster but that we adopt for ourselves.
To conclude, I am delighted and honoured to be taking a stand with Heidi, Hannah and their families, and countless others like them, against disability discrimination. I will be voting in support of this important Bill and strongly urge others to do the same.

Jonathan Buckley: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this vital Bill today. As has been said by others, to do so on the day following Mother's Day, when we quite rightly look to the valuable contributions that mothers have played across our society, I, for one, am very proud to say that, if it were not for the intervention and help from my own mother and, indeed, grandmother, I would not be standing before the House today.
I have witnessed a number of very courageous individuals and families speak about disability discrimination. I would like to say that it is a pleasure to walk in their footsteps, but the plain fact is that we should not need to be here debating this Bill today. More than 2,000 families and individuals with lived experiences of Down's syndrome — one of the conditions commonly screened for in pregnancy — wrote to Prime Minister Boris Johnson in Westminster to ask him not to introduce abortion regulations in Northern Ireland that would perpetuate stereotypes of people with certain congenital conditions, but, sadly, their request went unanswered.
Some have spoken about the delays in antenatal testing for congenital conditions as justification for a law that provides one limit for termination in pregnancies in which a congenital condition is suspected and another in pregnancies in which it is not. They suggest that those delays require the provision of termination up to birth. To that suggestion, I can do no better than to quote one mother, Nicola Sparrow, from elsewhere in the UK, who said:
"No test could have told us how strong, cheeky, determined, brave, funny and beautiful our baby would be."
As the Down's Syndrome Research Foundation has said:
"a prenatal diagnosis doesn't tell us of the full and love filled life that a child may have, the baby with Down's Syndrome will write their own story just like any other child."
The idea that late screening results justify a law permitting termination up to birth entirely misses the point. The desperately sad truth is that antenatal screening and tests are not being used to provide the best possible care for babies with Down's syndrome. They are not being used to give these children all that they need to write their own stories.
Allow me to give you an insight into where these tests lead. Nicola Sparrow writes:
"The first thing that the consultant said to me was if you come in and see us this week, we will arrange a termination for you. She sat us down and told us all the negative things about having a child with Down's syndrome.

She said, 'You are only 28, you are both so young. You should terminate and start again.' I was incredibly shocked that I was being asked this at 37 weeks pregnant, after just being told that I was being induced the following morning. I was being told that I still had options whether I was going to have my baby or not.

Then also, if she was born not breathing or struggling to breathe, that they were not willing to help my baby, they were willing to just leave her."
This should never be. This is not about individual clinicians. This is about a whole system that is shaped through the narrative of managing what is termed, so unhelpfully, "risk".
Despite some improvements, this week, I read the gov.uk website's guidance on screening for ultrasound practitioners. It says:
"Screening is a process of identifying apparently healthy people who may be at increased risk of a disease or condition. They can then be offered information, further tests and appropriate treatment to reduce their risk and/or any complications arising from the disease or condition."
While I appreciate that that is a headline definition of screening as it applies to many conditions, please note the purpose of the statement:
"They can then be offered information, further tests and appropriate treatment to reduce their risk".
That appears at the beginning of a document that talks solely about screening for the chromosomal conditions Down’s syndrome, Edwards’ syndrome and Patau’s syndrome. Let me be very clear: none of those syndromes is an illness to be cured. The only so-called treatment to reduce what the authors describe as "risk" is a termination of pregnancy. That handbook uses the word "risk" 60 times, and the document has been updated as recently as 2019.
No wonder that parents are being met with the language of risk in antenatal care. We do not want to see a growth of that narrative in Northern Ireland, although I note that the language of risk is already used on the nidirect website with regard to congenital conditions. We need to act now.
Some Members said that the law as it stands is about giving women choices. In June last year, Members spoke about the need to provide compassionate care for women in extraordinary circumstances. At this point, I reference the brave disability rights campaigner, Heidi Crowter. Anybody who has had the pleasure of meeting Heidi cannot but be impressed by that young lady's vision and determination to see her rights as somebody with Down's syndrome being respected. That is why I take great notice of the comments of the Chair of the Health Committee, Colm Gildernew, because Heidi quoted to Colm his comments last June when Sinn Féin tabled the very amendment that gave effect to this:
"Sinn Féin does not support CEDAW's recommendations to provide abortion in the case of severe foetal impairment such as Down's syndrome. Our amendment welcomes the important intervention by disability campaigner Heidi Crowter, who has been referred to today, and rejects the specific legislative provision in the abortion legislation that goes beyond fatal foetal abnormalities to include non-fatal disabilities such as Down's syndrome. I support the amendment." — [Official Report (Hansard), 2 June 2020, p70, col 2].
Let me acknowledge today that being a parent must be, without doubt, a scary thing, and all the more so when you are aware of particular hurdles that you and your child will have to navigate.
One woman has described her experiences of receiving a positive screening result for Down's syndrome, saying:
"I was 19 weeks pregnant. I had a much longed for baby growing inside of me that I suddenly felt so far detached from. ... I was left with a list of characteristics, a list of everything that could go wrong with my baby."
She goes on:
"we were scared. Scared of the unknown, scared if she would be accepted by others, scared if she would be ok, scared of the impact she would have on Florrie, scared for our future."
That is only part of that woman's story. Of the day on which she gave birth to her daughter, Matilda, she says:
"that was the moment everything changed. ... Once Down Syndrome was the worst thing that had ever happened to us. Today it is a very small part of what makes Matilda fabulous."
That is a point that, I am sure, many Members across the House can attest to, and certainly those who have met Heidi or others with Down's syndrome will know what incredible lives they live. She has been a trailblazer for disabilities rights, and I know that she will be watching intently to the debate today. I thank her for her interventions thus far.
The Bill is about creating an environment that sees beyond the diagnosis. It is about creating an environment where women are, first and foremost, not given a description of perceived risks that fill them with fear but are told of all the ways in which their medical team will support them so that they can flourish. No woman should have to make a decision about pregnancy based on fear.
One of my colleagues on the Health Committee mentioned the question of growing waiting lists for support services, such as speech and language therapy, for children with disabilities. I appreciate the Member's intent and welcome the chance to discuss how we can better support those children and their families. We must ensure that appropriate wrap-around services are, indeed, in place. Let me say categorically that the length of waiting lists is not a reason to object to the Bill. We need to ensure that no family feels so under-supported that termination of pregnancy is seen as their only option.
Sinead McLaughlin referred to a number of statistics today, but, as Robbie Butler quite rightly pointed out, each statistic is a life. Sinead McLaughlin talked about the Bill being an overreaction to a small number of abortions. I say today that if, through the means of this Bill, we can save just one life, it will have been worth it. I implore Members to vote with me and vote for the Bill.

Emma Sheerin: As alluded to by others, it is unbelievable that, seven short days ago, we stood in the Chamber united across our party divides to celebrate International Women's Day in sisterhood and collaboration. It is a sad reality, as Sinead McLaughlin pointed out, that the good nature and solidarity shown last Monday did not set the tone for the week. This has been an incredibly weary time for anyone who identifies as a woman. I am sure that many of you saw the post on social media that went viral a few days ago. It related to a story that was making headlines at the time, and I think that it is apt for this conversation as well. It issued this warning:
"Meghan Markle won't see your post about how you don't believe that she was suicidal, but a friend or a loved one on your timeline who has had that same battle will".
Those are words to think about when we are discussing the issue of abortion. None of us knows what anyone else has gone through. None of us knows how we would react when faced with an unthinkable scenario. When we are standing here talking about this, we must remember that there are women and men out there who have lived through those same unthinkable situations. There are women listening to this debate who should have been mothers and are not. They are still getting over the trauma that something like Mother's Day invokes, trying to just get through a time that is meant for celebration when they are, instead, dealing with loss, emptiness and thoughts of what could have been.
This private Member's Bill is an attempt to change legislation that has never been implemented or acted upon properly. The real focus of the Assembly should be on delivering the services that women are entitled to. In the simplest of terms, people who are in need of abortion services need healthcare. That there is political or moral objection to abortion is understandable on a personal basis, and the views of those who have strong opinions on the issue should be respected, but we cannot allow personal objection to block healthcare that has already been legislated for.
Sinn Féin, as a party of rights, recognises that women in Ireland, North and South, have been treated as second-class citizens for long enough. In recent weeks, we have seen the publication of reports into the so-called mother-and-baby homes, North and South, both of which were damning and depressing and highlighted significant human rights abuses. Whilst services are denied in the North, those same human rights abuses continue. The veil of secrecy and shame that hung over our island, created and perpetuated by the Church and states working hand in hand, must be removed once and for all.
We had a system in both jurisdictions where sex education in schools was none existent. So, whilst misogyny was internalised, gender roles were literally enforced in legislation and child bearing and rearing were the sole responsibility of our women, and they were not even afforded the dignity of information, let alone contraception. All those young women and girls, taken away from their family homes and forced into what was effectively slave labour, serving sentences without having committed any crimes. For the few who could afford it, an escape to England was the only option, where they were exploited by backstreet abortionists who masqueraded as clinicians. The shipping of women in crisis overseas should never have been the norm, but to all our shame, for far too long, it was. To think that that is still happening in 2021 is heartbreaking. Whilst services have not been properly commissioned, that is our reality: women being forced to fly to another country during a pandemic to access healthcare that they are, by law, entitled to here.
So, while the DUP complain about a border down the Irish Sea, when it comes to abortion provision, and indeed human rights in general, it is quite content for the North to be completely at odds with what Britain is doing.

Paul Givan: Will the Member give way?

Emma Sheerin: No thank you.
What we should be doing in the Assembly is looking at ways in which we can better support people who are living with disabilities and ensure that they have access to the basic rights that many of us take for granted. Last week, at our Ad Hoc Committee on a bill of rights, we heard from a young woman with autism who told us that, when her personal assistant is off for the day, she does not get an education. We should be addressing matters like that. We should be prioritising the provision of better prenatal and postnatal care for new mothers who struggle in the lead up to giving birth and the period that follows. To re-traumatise women in the most difficult of circumstances imaginable is wrong, and attempting to score political points by pitting vulnerable women and couples against a minority grouping is reprehensible. I will be joining my Sinn Féin colleagues in abstaining.

Chris Lyttle: Alliance Party policy is that start- and end-of-life matters are a matter of individual conscience, and so I speak in an individual capacity on this important matter. I acknowledge the robust contribution of my Alliance Party colleague Paula Bradshaw MLA, which was self-evidently based on her sustained and extensive work on the matter.
I have spoken in the Assembly on the serious matter of abortion on a number of occasions. I have done my best to engage with health staff and families who have been affected by it and who have widely different views on it. I voted in favour of legislative provision for medical termination on the grounds of fatal fetal abnormality in the Assembly over five years ago, in 2016. On that occasion, I voted in favour of legislative amendments that were tabled by Trevor Lunn MLA and Stewart Dickson MLA; legislative provision that the courts have since required of this jurisdiction. I do, however, have concern regarding legislative provision for abortion on the grounds of severe fetal impairment, particularly if it provides for abortion on the grounds of disability. I will, therefore, vote, at this stage, to permit the Bill to progress for more detailed scrutiny at the Health Committee and Consideration Stage of the Assembly's legislative process; scrutiny that a public consultation ought to have already facilitated.
I acknowledge that there are people who support the legislative provision for abortion on the grounds of severe fetal impairment due to concern that its omission could limit and endanger access to termination in cases of fatal fetal abnormality. I will do my best to engage with and heed those concerns should the Bill pass to the Health Committee and Consideration Stage. I acknowledge that it remains to be seen whether Northern Ireland Assembly legislation can actually change a legal duty on the UK Government to implement the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women recommendations on abortion, which include the grounds of severe fetal impairment. I had hoped that the UK-enacted legislative provision for fatal fetal abnormality would have satisfied CEDAW recommendations on severe fetal impairment, but that does not appear to be the case.
It is also an inescapable fact that this abortion legislation exists because the Northern Ireland Executive did not. If MLAs were serious about delivering comprehensive, fit-for-purpose abortion legislation in Northern Ireland, they would have accepted that a three-year Executive hiatus and a narrow private Member's Bill of this nature are not the best way of achieving that aim.

Gordon Lyons: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. I thank the Member for Lagan Valley Mr Givan for bringing this legislation to the Floor of the House. Although there is much that could be said about abortion law in Northern Ireland and the manner in which changes have been made, that is for another day. We are here to discuss the Bill's Second Reading.
Second Reading, as we all know, is an opportunity for us to debate the general principles of a Bill. I believe that the general principles and aims of this short Bill are simple and easily understood. Quite simply, it is about equality and ensuring that everyone is equally valued, regardless of his or her abilities. Without this Bill, we are saying that children with disabilities while in the womb are not equal to other children. I cannot emphasise enough how strongly I disagree with that sentiment.
I want to share with the House not my views but those of a friend and former constituent of mine. She has sent a letter to many MLAs sharing the experiences of her son, who has Down's syndrome. It is important that we allow other people's voices to be heard today, not just those who have been elected to this place. She says:
"Harry was born at just over 37 weeks. Following his birth, we were told that he had some of the markers for Down's syndrome. A few days later, his diagnosis was confirmed. Were we shocked? Yes. This was totally unexpected as there had been nothing picked up in our scans. Did it change how we felt about Harry? Absolutely not. Are we anxious about the future? Yes; but then Harry amazes us with his strength, progress and determination. This reminds us, as a nurse did in the hospital, that Harry is not Down's syndrome; it does not define who he is or who he will become".
She goes on to say:
"This Bill is simply asking that babies who receive an antenatal diagnosis, or even when the parent is told that there is a possibility of a diagnosis of a disability, are given the same rights as other babies. This is about equality. We live in a society that constantly talks about equality and inclusivity, yet here we are taking away the rights of a baby before he or she is even born. My older son would be protected after 24 weeks, but my youngest could have been terminated right up to birth. Why?"
She says:
"I hear the experiences of women in England who have been told their unborn baby may have a high chance of having Down's syndrome and how they are asked repeatedly at appointments if they are considering termination, at times right up to just before a baby is due to be born. It scares me that this could become the experience of women in Northern Ireland. Do we want to live in a country where Down's syndrome and other disabilities are viewed with such negativity, such fear?"
She then says:
"A close friend who has a daughter in her twenties who also has Down's syndrome came to visit me while I was still in hospital after having Harry. We were able to compare our experiences of the first few days following diagnosis. Despite the amount of time that has passed, I will never forget her words to me as we sat in the hospital canteen, 'Grace, we consider it a privilege to be the parents of a child with Down's syndrome'. I have never forgotten these words".
She finishes her letter by saying:
"How would a change in this legislation impact adults and children with a disability? It would make them feel equal, help them know that their lives are valued. So let's work together to end this discrimination against those with a disability, or, as someone put it recently, those with a different ability. I ask you to consider your vote carefully when you are given the opportunity, and recognise the strength of feeling that exists within Northern Ireland".
I could not have put it better. I support the Bill.

Caoimhe Archibald: Nothing that we debate and discuss in the Chamber is done in a vacuum. It is done in the context of the time. In years to come, if anyone is minded to look at what we have done in the Assembly, that is how it will be judged. Last Monday, as alluded to by a number of Members, we celebrated International Women's Day. International Women's Day began as a campaign for women's rights. It is a reminder that gender equality remains elusive. In the week since, the lack of equality and how women are subject to different treatment has become all too apparent. Unfortunately, we all came to know who Sarah Everard was, for the worst possible reason. Sarah was walking home and never made it. Instead, her life was brutally ended by a man. Sarah's murder touched many other women who have experienced harassment and violence, and when those women turned out in solidarity to say, "No more" to violence against women, they were subjected to a disgraceful and disproportionately harsh response from the police.
My party colleague Emma Sheerin referred to the publication of the mother-and-baby homes reports, North and South. They are a stark reminder of the result of the institutionalised misogyny of our not-too-distant past. The continuing impact of those homes is still felt by too many people. Mother-and-baby homes were how the establishment of the Church and state exerted control over women's lives and bodies in the past, showing how women were held to a different standard then. Gender inequality is one of the root causes of gender-based violence, which can manifest itself in rape and sexual violence and have devastating consequences. The DUP is seeking to perpetuate gender inequalities. It still seeks to control women through limiting their access to modern, compassionate healthcare. It is still holding women to a different standard.
Let no one be in doubt about what is happening here. The Bill that we are debating may be focused on one aspect of provision, but that is the thin end of the wedge. It is a transparent attempt to reopen abortion provision as a whole.

Jim Allister: Will the Member give way?

Caoimhe Archibald: No, thank you. The utter hypocrisy in the Bill seems to have escaped a lot of scrutiny. The DUP is trying to amend legislation that it is, apparently, opposed to in principle while being complicit in the UUP Health Minister's failure to implement the legislation that has been passed. The DUP, along with the UUP, is failing women. Amidst the lack of leadership from the Health Minister, health trusts have been left to pick up the slack and put in place early medical abortion services that have, at times, led to a postcode lottery in access to them. That is unacceptable. As my colleague Liz Kimmins pointed out, women who access those services are subjected to protests and harassment. Disgracefully, a male Member of the House — he is a former Health Minister — is at those protests. The Health and Justice Ministers need to look at ensuring that there are safe zones around clinics. The Health Minister has also, disgracefully, failed to put in place adequate facilitation for women to access abortion services through telemedicine in the context of the pandemic.
There is a deep irony in what the DUP, which is never done demanding the same treatment as Britain when it suits it, is trying to do here. It has spent the past 10 or more weeks cosying up to loyalist paramilitaries and ramping up tensions to try to undermine and roll back an international treaty because it is so exercised at the North being treated differently when it comes to trade arrangements. However, it has no such principles when it comes to human rights, as our LGBT+ citizens, Irish-language speakers and victims of the conflict can all well attest to. The DUP certainly has no regard to the disparity in the rights of women here when accessing health services.
Of course, it is also worth remembering why Westminster has legislated for abortion, and marriage equality for that matter. It is because parties here — not just the DUP, but it predominantly — failed to deal with this issue. They left women to fight through the courts for access to healthcare. It is contemptible that the DUP would now attempt to roll back on the hard-won rights of women. Moving this Bill may well be an exercise in futility because the British Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that, while abortion is a devolved matter, any abortion legislation that is passed here in the Assembly must comply with the CEDAW recommendations in the 2018 report, and this Bill clearly does not do that.
Knowing that this Bill will not make any material difference, why is the DUP cynically pitting people with disabilities against vulnerable women and women in difficult circumstances? Why is it deliberately conflating the issues while standing shoulder to shoulder with the UUP Health Minister in failing to implement the legislation that is in place? Is it simply for electoral purposes, or is it, as I and others believe, also the case that this Bill is just the beginning of its attempts to unravel the legislation that is in place?
As a woman, I am tired of having to debate the right of women to access appropriate healthcare. I am tired of being lectured about morality. I am tired of women being held to a different standard, and I am tired of hearing about women and girls being subjected to abuse and violence. Anyone who thinks that those things are not related is deluded. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Women's rights to modern, compassionate and appropriate healthcare should not still be up for debate. Instead, the Health Minister and the DUP should quit obfuscating and ensure that the health services that have been legislated for are put in place as a matter of urgency. It is time that we all trusted women to make decisions about their lives and their health, and trusted doctors to do their jobs.

Dolores Kelly: I welcome the opportunity to speak in favour of the Bill. Many of my party colleagues will support it today. I was getting a bit confused about what debate I was involved in. I thought that we were dealing directly with this Bill. I cannot speak for the Health Minister, but I am quite sure that he very seldom gets a leg up from the DUP. We will see how that pans out for him in the coming weeks and months.
I have to say that I want to keep this very compassionate. We all have family members who were born with disabilities and who lead very fulfilling lives and have enriched our family lives. However, I have to comment on Ms Sheerin, who said that, with human rights abuses, a shadow of shame hangs over our land. I would welcome the opportunity to debate on some occasion with her the human rights abuses that have resulted in shame falling over this land in the past number of years. However, on the Bill, many people referred to the excellent briefing document that we have been provided with by Don't Screen Us Out campaigners. Given more recent comments, it might, I hope, be worth repeating that the Supreme Court has given a non-binding judgement that there is no human right to have an abortion on the grounds of a non-fatal disability. Lord Mance said about children with non-fatal disabilities:
"But in principle a disabled child should be treated as having exactly the same worth in human terms as a non-disabled child ... This is also the consistent theme of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, expressing concerns about the stigmatising of persons with disabilities as living a life  of less value than that of others".
Lord Kerr said that the convention:
"is based on the premise that if abortion is permissible, there should be no discrimination on the basis that the foetus, because of a defect, will result in a child being born with a physical or mental disability."
He also said:
"many children born with disabilities, even grave disabilities, lead happy, fulfilled lives. In many instances they enrich and bring joy to their families and those who come into contact with them. Finally, the difficulty in devising a confident and reliable definition of serious malformation is a potent factor against the finding of incompatibility. For these and the other reasons given by the judge, I would refuse to make a declaration of incompatibility in the case of serious malformation of the foetus."
Many Members recognised the fact that we, as a society and as public bodies, do not give enough support to people with disabilities, their families and their carers. My goodness, we have seen the generosity of people during the pandemic, but we have also seen how difficult and straining it has been for sole carers. That is no reason to abort an otherwise healthy child, however. We do not abort people because they will grow up in poor families in which there are disadvantages, so, equally, why would this apply? I come at it from the perspective that we should deal with such sensitive matters compassionately. We are talking about two lives, not just one life. It is about not just women but the whole family. I hope that the message will go out from the Chamber that we have all recognised that we can and must do better to support people with disabilities and women who receive that devastating diagnosis about their unborn child. We should help them support and care for that child throughout its life journey.
Some have talked about the thin end of the wedge for rollback of the legislation. Others might see it as the thin end of the wedge for who can and cannot be aborted, where that might start and finish and what it means later in life for those with acquired illness and disability. People are right to say that they are big decisions. History will reflect very much on what we have said in the debate today. I hope that I have contributed in a sensitive and compassionate way, Mr Speaker, and I am happy to support the Bill.

Alan Chambers: The Bill involves a sensitive and emotive topic that I do not find particularly easy to speak about publicly and one that I am not particularly comfortable speaking about. I am sure that there are many in the House who share that discomfort around debating the issue. I acknowledge the Speaker's cautious opening remarks. I agree with him in recognising the effect that what is said in the Chamber today may have on many individuals listening to or watching the proceedings. I understand that there are many people who fully back the pro-choice position on the availability of abortion; equally, a huge number of people support a pro-life position. I found it regrettable that a few Members who spoke chose to attack the messenger rather than the message. Such a tactic is a distraction that serves only to diminish their case.
I have received over 700 pieces of correspondence asking me to support the Bill. I have also received emails from two professional medical bodies asking me to oppose it. Just today, an open letter landed in my mailbox that was signed by 190 local GPs challenging some of the comments contained in the correspondence from those professional bodies.
Our task would be so much easier if every medical voice said the same on the subject. The challenge for us is deciding what is best for the unborn and for those who are carrying them.
I listened closely and with admiration to what campaigner Heidi Crowter said in front of the Health Committee last week. She has not let her disability hinder her in any way and is making a huge contribution to society through her campaigning. She is loving and loved, as was evident from her interactions as she sat with her mother by her side and shared with the Committee her joy that she had recently married.
There are many examples of individuals just like Heidi who enjoy a full life and give much joy and love to those who care for them and help them to live as independent a life as is possible. Indeed, in many cases, those individuals enjoy a fully independent life. It cannot be right that the stroke of a legislator's pen could deny them the gift of life. The medical profession does not even have definitive definitions for "substantial risk" or "seriously disabled". How, then, can informed decisions be made about which babies should be aborted? On that basis, decisions can become subjective, and that cannot be right.
The Bill is a step in the right direction towards confirming that every baby has the right to be treated equally, no matter what the pre-birth scans show. What sort of a society would we be if we allowed the abortion of a baby with a cleft palate, a club foot or Down's syndrome? It is plainly wrong, and I will support the Bill.
I must challenge comments about the commissioning of general abortion services in Northern Ireland. I understand that the Health Minister brought before the Executive a number of options for an early medical abortion service but that there was no agreement. Since then, he has tried on a number of occasions to have the issue discussed and agreed to at the Executive, but with no success.
The Health Minister is bound, under the ministerial code, to bring the matter of the future commissioning of abortion services to the Executive to discuss and agree before it can proceed. That is a legal fact. Given the ongoing lack of political consensus, a decision about the scope of abortion services is likely to be regarded as controversial. If the Minister were to make a decision to commission and fund a new abortion service without Executive approval, he would be in clear breach of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland ministerial code. I suggest that those pointing the finger towards the Health Minister need to take further advice on this matter before they continue with their misleading attribution of blame to Minister Swann. I was amazed to hear two Sinn Féin members of the Executive demonstrating today that they seem to be unable to grasp the workings of the ministerial code. Other Members made similar erroneous statements today. Please check the facts. In the House, there seems to be an attitude that, if something is said often enough, it can become the truth. Sinn Féin is well-practised at that.

Andrew Muir: I will be brief. I feel that it is important to outline the rationale for how I will vote today on this important and complex issue.
In approaching the vote, I was guided by the legislation that the Bill seeks to amend and by the legislative process in this place. For the legislative process, the Assembly website gives details on the Second Stage of a Bill:
"This is the first opportunity for all MLAs to debate the general principles of the Bill. Members may indicate the issues they are likely to want to debate in more detail at later stages.

The Minister or Member in charge of the Bill begins the debate by outlining the Bill’s objectives. Other Members, including the Chairperson of the relevant Committee, give their opinion. The Minister or Member in charge speaks last in the debate, in order to respond to questions and comments about the Bill. At the end of the debate, MLAs vote to decide whether to agree to the Bill’s Second Stage, meaning it can proceed to the next stage. The Assembly may reject the Bill if it disagrees with the general principles. If approved, the Bill is referred to the appropriate statutory Committee."
In approaching the Second Stage, I note that the first sight that I had of this Bill and its specific proposals was on 16 February this year, when the Bill was first introduced. No prior consultation was undertaken and, whilst permissible, this is a serious oversight. The argument has been made that the issue was previously debated in the Assembly on 2 June last year. That is no substitute for proper consideration of the Bill and giving everyone, including those with specialist knowledge, the right to comment on proposals before legislation is tabled and debated.
The last time that the Assembly debated specific legislation about abortion was back on 10 February 2016, at which point Mr Dickson and Mr Lunn presented amendments concerning fatal fetal abnormality to the Justice Bill. Despite the fact that the then Justice Minister, David Ford stated:
"The consultation made specific recommendations to allow for termination in the case of fatal foetal abnormality" — [Official Report (Hansard), Bound Volume 112, p309 col 2].
those amendments were rejected, with the need for proper consultation being cited. Yet, the Assembly is now being asked by the Bill's sponsor to enable the passage of this Bill without any prior consultation. It may be legally and procedurally in order to proceed as planned without a consultation, but it is not a fit and proper way to deal with such a sensitive, detailed and complicated issue.
The Bill seeks to amend the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women report from February 2018, which made clear findings and recommendations. The Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 was amended to give these recommendations from CEDAW legal effect, with regulations subsequently made, which this Bill seeks to alter.
Members will be aware that abortion is a matter of conscience in the Alliance Party, with a free vote for all elected representatives. Many genuinely held views exist in this House and throughout society, which I respect. It is, however, my view that the legal obligations enshrined in law at Westminster must be upheld, respecting and upholding the recommendations within the CEDAW report on the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women and girls. The failure of the Department of Health to commission and fund services should be the current focus, including the recommendation of ensuring appropriate and ongoing support, social and financial, for women who decide to bring pregnancies to term.
The private Member’s Bill under consideration by the Assembly seeks to amend regulations and is, I feel, contrary to the CEDAW report and the overarching legislation, namely the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act. The obligations arising from that Act and contained in the regulations must be implemented without any more delay. It is my sincere view that the legislative reform concerning reproductive rights, enacted at Westminster in 2019, should not be amended as proposed today. We need to trust women to make decisions in consultation with their doctor, recognising that there are many different circumstances faced by women and girls.
As I have outlined, the Second Stage of a Bill involves a debate and vote on the general principles of the proposed legislation, and since I disagree with the same, I cannot support and vote in favour of them. The Bill could not be improved to such an extent at Committee Stage, Consideration Stage or Further Consideration Stage that I could support its passage to those further stages. Thus, I cannot support the Bill today.
In conclusion, when considering the Bill and today's debate, I was struck by the fact that, for so many years, I stood on the outside of this place, seeing rights and equality denied by the DUP and others. Those actions have had a devastating impact on so many, particularly my fellow LGBT brothers and sisters, who had to wait for the collapse of these institutions to get marriage equality via the same Act that this Bill now seeks to amend. Now that Stormont is back, I stand here as an MLA. I cannot, in good conscience, see those rights for women and girls that were enshrined in law by the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act rolled back.

Jim Allister: As legislators, when we come to debate this issue of all issues, an obvious but important starting point when we discuss our right to decide who should and who should not be aborted is to remind ourselves that we are all here because we were not aborted. No one chose to abort any of us. That is a sobering starting point, particularly for those who are so willing to defend and support abortion. They would do unto others what was not done to them.
Of course when we talk about abortion, we are talking about the deliberate, calculated act of snuffing out human life. There is nothing accidental about it. Yes, in pregnancies, sadly, miscarriages occur, stillbirths occur, but abortion is so different. It is the deliberate killing of the babe in the womb. However you dress it up, that is what it is. It is quite shocking to me that today, from some, the saving of even one life of a Down's baby could provoke such opposition.
Tonight, this Assembly in this vote will decide whether it is on the side of life or the side of death. It will decide — this is the nub of the matter — whether disability justifies death. It will decide whether we as legislators are going to validate disability as justification, by the state, for death. That is how chilling and awful the proposition is: that if someone in the womb, which should really be the safest place for any unborn, has a serious impairment detected, the state can validate their death.
This House will decide tonight whether what some see as imperfection offends to the extent that we warrant the killing. I heard talk in this debate about ensuring — I heard Miss McLaughlin talking about it — that we have a progressive, inclusive society. It is neither progressive nor inclusive for the aborted, the unborn, whose only crime under this limb of the legislation is that they are not as others.
Really? Is that what we, as legislators, think we should be doing?
Should we not be the voice for the voiceless — those who cannot speak but those whom we would authorise the killing of? Should we not pause and think, as legislators, of being the voice of the voiceless? I would have thought that we should.
What are we talking about? At our briefing, representatives from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists gave us a definition of severe impairment:
"Severe impairments are wide-ranging and can include chromosomal anomalies, congenital anomalies and anomalies related to the nervous system".
If you look up congenital disorders in any respectable medical textbook, you will find this list. Common congenital disorders include the following: cleft lip and cleft palate, cerebral palsy, fragile X syndrome, Down's syndrome, spina bifida, cystic fibrosis and heart conditions. The legislation that the Member seeks to amend admits abortion for those suffering from congenital anomalies. I have listed them: that is what we are talking about.
When you go to the World Health Organization's website, you will discover, under a section called 'Treatment and care', that:
"Many structural congenital anomalies can be corrected with paediatric surgery and early treatment can be administered to children with functional problems".
However, it seems that we do not need to worry about that: we can just abort them. How callous is that?
If we are a caring society, why do we not care for the unborn with congenital anomalies? Why do we not care about them? I say most forcefully to the House that we should, and shame on us if we do not. Yet, those who support abortion want the right to terminate — what an ugly word — such children, and without a blush of embarrassment they do it in the name of human rights. What a perversion.
I will tell you what offends me, Mr Speaker. It is the invocation of human rights to justify the deliberate killing of human beings. That is the greatest offence. Thus, I have to say, what a charter for death and destruction — the very antithesis of human rights — is the CEDAW report. It is that, we are absurdly told, to which we are tied by legislation. I say to the House that all of us have a choice to make. Are we on the side of the voiceless, the unborn and those who some would call imperfect, or are we on the ruthless side of terminating?
The legislation that brought in abortion will forever be infamously linked to the restoration of these institutions. The clue is in the title: the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019. Whether slipping through same-sex marriage and abortion in such legislation suited some, whose greater priority was a return to office, remains a matter for valid speculation. However, if we can roll back some of that, the bounden duty on us is to do so most assuredly.
Here, in the Bill, we are talking about a very modest step to deal with one specific and discrete aspect of the abomination of abortion. It is just one aspect, yet it infuriates those who defend and promote abortion that the House would dare to even think of protecting Down's syndrome babies or those with other classifications of serious impairment.
As for Sinn Féin, it told us that the debate was a distraction from the DUP doing this, that or something else. Yes, it was a distraction. Its contributions are a distraction from the fact its Members were the very people who, on 2 June last year, proposed the very premise of the Bill. It was Ms Sheerin, no less, who proposed the amendment in the House.

Jonathan Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way and for raising that important point. It is worth noting on the record Ms Sheerin's comments that day when she said:
"To serve disabled people properly, we need to build infrastructure that is totally accessible. We need to have inclusivity to properly service section 75 obligations across all public-sector bodies and to raise awareness of the issues that face less-able people in their daily life.

Sinn Féin does not believe that a non-fatal foetal abnormality is an appropriate criterion for an abortion."— [Official Report (Hansard), 2 June 2020, p65, col 1].

Jim Allister: Absolutely. I have it here. That is word for word what Sinn Féin said, through Ms Sheerin, in proposing its amendment. Of course, in the Republic of Ireland, to which it wishes to join us all, this is exactly the legislation that they have. Yet, today, it is unwilling to support the very thing that it called for in the House nine months ago. It is the very thing that it voted for in the Republic of Ireland, but, today, it is a different tune. We had Ms O'Neill talking to us about "injustice and cruelty", but not a thought of the injustice and cruelty to the unborn who are to be terminated. Not a thought.
Not for the first time in the House, Sinn Féin stands exposed in its rank hypocrisy on the issue. The very people who proposed the very wording in its amendment, which lays the basis for the Bill, are today the people who are saying, "No, we must not do it". They find all sorts of excuses, none of which are credible. I have never heard such porous excuses in all my life for not standing up for what you told us nine months ago you believed in. Which was the real Sinn Féin? Maybe I had better not know the answer to that question; it might be even more disturbing.
So, here we are today, with a most modest proposal. I say to the House —.

Emma Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister: Unlike the Member who seeks to intervene, who refused my intervention, I will.

Emma Sheerin: Unlike the Member, I did not quote you, Mr Allister. I am intervening because you are all quoting me. Do the Members referring to things that I said in the House in June last year acknowledge that the British Secretary of State has already said that any decision that this House takes that is not in line with the recommendations of the CEDAW report will be overturned in the same way as Westminster legislated on this issue for this jurisdiction in the first place? Therefore, the conversation that we are having is totally without point. It will not change anything, and that is the rationale for our decision to abstain.

Jim Allister: I have two points to make about that, if I might, Mr Speaker. Of course, the legislation had already been passed last June when the Member proposed her opposition to this tenet, so it is the Member who has shifted her ground, not anyone else. Is it not intriguing that, when it suits, the ally of the Secretary of State is Sinn Féin? It is Sinn Féin that is saying to the House, "We have to accept British rule. We have to accept what the Secretary of State has said on this issue." Of course, in doing that, Sinn Féin also seems to have forgotten that abortion is, in fact, a devolved matter. Is Sinn Féin not the great champion of wanting to extend the realms of devolution? My goodness, Sinn Féin even wants to put its hands in our pockets through taxation under devolution. However, when it comes to this devolved issue of abortion, it is saying, "Oh no, we will kowtow to those who have put this upon us". Is that the best that Sinn Féin can do?

Dolores Kelly: I thank the Member for giving way. He will not be surprised to learn that the SDLP has a steadfast view of this particular British Secretary of State: we do not trust him as far as we could throw him. However, does the Member also recall that, when the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 was going through the Westminster Parliament, it was acknowledged by no less a person than Viscount Younger of Leckie that:
"As abortion remains a devolved issue, the Assembly is now able to legislate, or indeed amend the regulations, should it so wish"?

Jim Allister: Absolutely —.

Alex Maskey: Sorry, Mr Allister. We are in danger of straying way too far and for too long off the subject of the Bill, so I invite you to go back to the purpose of the Bill. That should not be so difficult.

Jim Allister: Yes, Mr Speaker. The Assembly is being invited to do the very thing that the Government said that it could do: amend the legislation on abortion. That seems to me to be what this Bill seeks to do.
I believe that we need to go further. Seventy-nine per cent of the people who responded to the Government's proposals expect us to go further, because they rejected those proposals. I regret to have to say to the Member that the long title of the Bill probably impedes much by way of amendment to make a real assault on the abortion trade. However, at least it is a start, and I hope that no one who supports it sees it as an end; rather, it should be seen as a beginning.
For as long as babes in the womb can be summarily killed by the gruesome practice of abortion, as legislators, we fail the unborn, and I do not want to be in that category.

Clare Bailey: I declare an interest as a board member of Informing Choices NI, formerly the Family Planning Association in Northern Ireland.
I also speak as a mother who supports my right to choose how many children to have, when to have them and whether I want to have them at all. I support my right to choose to continue with a pregnancy or to terminate it. I support the right of any woman and all women to have that choice. The only role for anyone else who is not me or the woman who has to make that choice is to support us in making our decision. At no stage should a state Government, never mind a devolved Assembly, even be involved in that decision and be able to legislate to remove or restrict my choice. The role of a state Government or a devolved Assembly lies in the commissioning of services to allow for free, safe and legal healthcare for all women at home.
Back in 2014, as we all know, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women carried out a full inquiry in the UK, including us in Northern Ireland. That was a rare thing to have happened. To my knowledge, it has undertaken such action in only four other jurisdictions. When it was here, it held meetings with, among others, the Communities and Justice Ministers, the Attorney General and officials from the Department of Health. It interviewed Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly from the five main political parties, members of civil society, academics, trade unions and numerous women who had sought or procured an abortion. I was part of that evidence-giving session. The committee's confidential inquiry took place under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, to which the UK acceded back in 2004.
When the CEDAW inquiry published its report in February 2018, its findings on Northern Ireland were:
"thousands of women and girls in Northern Ireland are subjected to grave and systematic violations of rights through being compelled to either travel outside Northern Ireland to procure a legal abortion or to carry their pregnancy to term."
It says:
"The situation in Northern Ireland constitutes violence against women".
Earlier today, a Matter of the Day was accepted, and we had a debate in which everybody spoke against violence against women.
The pro-choice and anti-choice debate has been well rehearsed and acted out in the Chamber long enough for us all to know that this is not where we change mindsets. Where we have seen mindsets shift is when women have been forced to come forward and publicly bare their souls by telling their personal stories to us as legislators, to our media, to our courts and to the very states that have removed their right to choose. It is not and never has been my desire or that of the Green Party of Northern Ireland to legislate away a woman's right to choose.
The Assembly and the five-party Executive do not have a notable record on standing up for women's rights. The UK Government have rarely stepped in to uphold equal rights for our citizens. I know that every Member has been lobbied on this, so I know that every Member has been given the briefing papers from professionals and medics working in Northern Ireland. I will point to a few key points that they raise.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is telling us to consider the issues around the Bill and that removing the ability of clinicians and women to terminate a pregnancy for a severe fetal impairment after 24 weeks will have a substantial impact. Women will be rushed to terminate their pregnancy before 24 weeks. We know that Doctors for Choice in Northern Ireland has said that, in its view, along with that of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, women should be supported in difficult circumstances during pregnancy and that this is best accomplished by permitting decisions to be taken by women in discussion with an expert and a multidisciplinary clinical team. It goes on to give everybody the reasons why the Bill will not do what we hear it is seeking to do. Amnesty International and Informing Choices NI have also sent a briefing paper, and it points to the same thing: the Bill will not do what we hear it is seeking to do.
As I listen to Members from the DUP, the UUP and, of course, the TUV, I hear their outrage at not being able to import trees, plants and cricket-field loam from GB and are blaming the protocol for threatening their sense of Britishness and for them being treated differently from other UK citizens. Well, you have been reminded several times today that the Irish Sea border has always existed for women in Northern Ireland. Today, we continue to force women from Northern Ireland to travel to access safe, free, legal healthcare, regardless of there being a pandemic that is putting them at further risk. Shame on us. The Bill will only exacerbate that, because this is what a clawback of the hard-fought-for, hard-won, small amount of women's rights looks like.
There is nothing about the Bill that will stop abortions happening. Everything about the Bill will simply make it harder and riskier for women to access them, but I suspect that that is exactly the intention of the sponsor. Even if passed, it will not be implemented, if we are to believe the Secretary of State, so perhaps it is a stunt. Who knows? Either way, I look forward to continuing to work with Westminster and the Secretary of State to have free, safe, legal services commissioned here for women in Northern Ireland, whereby they can access treatments and be free to make the choices that affect their own lives.
I call on everybody to reject the Bill. Abstention is not an option, because abstention will simply allow this to continue.

Arlene Foster: Clearly, I am speaking from the Back Benches to support my friend in his proposal of the Bill. We have heard very clearly from many that it is not what many of us would like to see happening in terms of abortions. However, we feel so strongly about the voice of those with Down's syndrome, and I have many in my constituency. I think especially today of Hannah Wilson, such a happy young person whom I speak with often, and how she feels that what is being spoken about today is very distressing. I want to say to Hannah: I will always stand up for you, Hannah, and I will always stand up for those people who do not have as strong a voice as some people in the Chamber. I commend my friend for bringing the legislation. I know the amount of work that he has put into it.
Of course, this is not a technical or statistical piece of legislation. We are talking about real lives. We are talking about real people — our constituents — who feel that we do not value them, and that is incredibly sad.
I share a constituency with the Chair of the Health Committee, and I ask him to reflect on some of the things that he said today. I know that my constituency friend from the Ulster Unionist Party will view those comments as being very disrespectful to many of our constituents who have Down's syndrome and non-life-threatening disabilities. However, that is a matter for him.
I am distressed that Clare Bailey would seek to equate this matter with violence against women. Of course, it is nothing of the sort. All the women in my party and all the women in the Ulster Unionist Party feel as strongly about violence against women as anyone else. Of course we do; we are very concerned about what our daughters have to put up with as they walk in the streets of various cities. I find it astonishing that someone would try to take away my voice on violence against women just because I do not agree with that person on the taking of life through abortion. I feel incredibly strongly about that. I strongly believe that we need a strategy on violence against women. I hope that the Justice Minister will introduce a strategy in the near future. It is something that many in the Executive want to discuss tomorrow.
It upsets me when I listen to people talk about women's rights, as if those of us who believe in supporting those who have disabilities and Down's syndrome should not have a voice. Let me say this: people in the House will not take away my voice to stand up for women who believe in protecting those young people with Down's syndrome who have value in our society. I feel very strongly about that, and I have been deeply saddened. I did not plan to speak today, but I have tried to keep an eye on what is going on and I have been distressed by some of the things that I have heard from some Members.
I want to put the record straight. Although abortion is a devolved matter, as the Member for North Antrim Mr Allister pointed out, some Members seek to hide behind the skirts of the Secretary of State. They should not do that if they believe in devolution. I heard much over the weekend from members of the SDLP and Sinn Féin about how the British Government having an office in Northern Ireland will damage the devolution settlement. Notwithstanding the fact that plans for the office are included in the New Decade, New Approach agreement. People should reread the New Decade, New Approach agreement. However, abortion is a matter for the House, and I feel very strongly about that.
As an Anglican, I feel obliged to comment on the churching of women, which Sinéad McLaughlin raised. There is a churching of women service in the Anglican communion, and it is about giving thanks. It is not about judging or stigmatisation. I do not know whether it is different in the Roman Catholic Church; maybe some of my friends opposite could help me with that. I felt that there was a need to clarify that issue because the churching of women is about thanksgiving not stigmatisation. I was struck by the comments that were made on that matter.
As I say, I did not plan to speak today but I felt moved to because of some of the issues that have been raised. The past year has taught us much about the fragility of life. I have tried — we have all tried — to save lives over the past year; that is what we have been trying to do. In a recent Sunday morning television debate, Lord Sumption dismissed the concerns of a clinically vulnerable woman who was suffering from cancer by describing her as having a "less valuable" life than the rest of us. Rightly, many of us were outraged by those comments about a "less valuable" life. No one's life is less valuable, and that standard should apply to life inside and outside the womb. We are entering the realm of eugenics, ladies and gentlemen.
Members can deny that all they like. We are on a very slippery slope, and everybody should be very careful about that. It is Down's syndrome and non-fatal disabilities today. What will we decide is appropriate for abortion in 10 years' time?
Think about what you are doing today in the House and please send a message to those constituents of ours who have non-fatal disabilities and who add so much to the lives of their families and to society. Do not make them feel as though they are second-class citizens. There is a great deal of evidence out there saying that, if this goes through, people will feel obliged to go through with abortions even if, in other circumstances, they would not. I am asking you to think about the Bill.
Whilst we can talk about the rights of women — nobody is happier to talk about that than I am — there should be a recognition that those of us on this side of the House have as much right to talk about the rights of women as anybody else in the House.

Roy Beggs: Abortion is an issue of conscience in the Ulster Unionist Party, and I will speak personally on the matter. I indicate my support for the general principles of the Severe Fetal Impairment Abortion (Amendment) Bill, which is designed to give protection to unborn children with disabilities. I thank Mr Givan, a Member for Lagan Valley, for sponsoring the Bill and I thank disability campaigners, such as Heidi Crowter, who have highlighted the issue, publicised it and created a greater awareness of the reality and potential outworkings of the Bill on those with disabilities.
Under our current legislation, under the severe fetal impairment heading, the protections for our disabled unborn children are removed right up until birth. Then, suddenly, they have protection. I have to ask why. How is that reasonable? Their lives can be terminated until the very last moment, until they are born. Surely, there is something wrong in that.
Other Members indicated that a wide range of disabilities is covered by the terminology. It can be as basic as a cleft lip or Down's syndrome. Why? Friends of mine — they are in my community — have a cleft lip or Down's syndrome. Why should their life have been at risk of being terminated at some point whilst they were unborn? There is something wrong with our present legislation, and it clearly needs to be changed.
Many have quoted the 2018 report from the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, which was the trigger for the Westminster legislation that brought the current legislation in Northern Ireland into being. However, it is also important to recognise the 2018 UK Supreme Court judgement that did not find the absence of legal abortion in cases of severe fetal impartment to be incompatible with article 3 or article 8 rights. What of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2011 report, which stated:
"disabled people have suggested a bias towards termination of pregnancies if a child is likely to be disabled. Disabled people believe that clear consistency is needed in the approach to resuscitation of disabled people and non-disabled people, when seriously ill."?
Surely, we have to value all life, regardless of whether someone is disabled.
We need to think of the very basics, one of which the basic right to life. In determining what we do, it is important that we value all life. It is for that reason that I will support this very reasonable amendment to the current legislation. It gives protection back to those who are vulnerable and have disabilities: the unborn children in their mothers' womb.

Rachel Woods: I intend to keep my comments on Second Stage very short. As a woman and someone who trusts women, I believe in a very important principle: women should be allowed to make their own decisions when it comes to their health.
I want to be clear with all the women who are watching this debate, and I believe that those who support the Bill should be equally honest. The Bill is saying to women who find themselves in really difficult circumstance with their pregnancy that they are on their own. If passed, the Bill will do nothing more than shut women out and cut them off from reproductive healthcare services when they need them most. It is a deliberately orchestrated attempt to roll back on hard-won rights in women's health. For that reason, the Green Party Northern Ireland will not support it.
At a time when we should be looking to improve healthcare options and commission services for women, the Bill seeks to restrict and limit them. The entire basis for the Bill rests upon a false claim that the current regulations discriminate against disabled people. That is wrong. It is a completely flawed argument to begin with and exposes the falsehood upon which the Bill has been presented to us.
If the current legislation breached the human rights of disabled people, the relevant statutory bodies tasked with advising government on compliance with human rights frameworks would have made such a public determination, but they have not.

Jim Allister: Will the Member give way?

Rachel Woods: No, I will not.
This is an extremely important point because, as I have said, it is the ground on which the Bill stands, which is very shaky, to say the least. The current law was designed to meet the recommendations of the UN Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 2018 report, which stated that it was for the UK Government to ensure that legislation did not perpetuate any disability stereotypes, and that is what has happened. It is a similar model to the model in GB, whose regulations were tested in 2011 by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which found that disabled people have the same right to life as non-disabled people and are not subject to arbitrary deprivation of life.
If the Bill has been introduced to address something that has no basis in fact, what is it really about, and what does it actually do? As I said in my opening remarks, it is no coincidence that the Bill is supported by those who do not support reproductive choices for women. In my view, too many do not pay enough attention to the work of government yet are happy to thrust themselves into decisions that are best made between a woman and her doctor.
Again, I speak to all our women and girls out there. No matter what your background, disability, age, religion or income, when it comes to your health, no politician should decide what is best for you. It is 2021, and we should not have to remind people of that. The only person who should get to make decisions about your health is you.
If the Bill is passed, it will breach the human rights of women and girls in Northern Ireland, and it will force those in the most difficult circumstances to travel to where they will be treated differently. It will be a return to unequal access to reproductive healthcare, and that will be detrimental to our most vulnerable women and girls, particularly those from low-income backgrounds and those without family support. We cannot and must not go backwards. We should be discussing the real issue at the moment, which is the failure of the Executive to commission services. It is absolutely disgraceful that that has not happened despite the new law coming into force last March.
This Bill breaches human rights and will entrench health inequalities. It will negatively impact on our most vulnerable women, disabled and not disabled. For those reasons, we will not support it.

Gerry Carroll: It is an absolute disgrace that abortion services that were legislated for by Westminster are still not in place because the Assembly has failed to commission them. The denial of abortion access by the Minister of Health is not compliant with human rights and should not have been tolerated by the wider Executive for this long.
Women have been told to travel during the pandemic, when planes were grounded, the cost of travelling by boat had soared and hotels were shut, not to mention the risk of contracting a deadly virus. Women who could not afford to travel or who were high risk had to access treatment outside of the health system. What a disgrace. The pandemic forced too many into economic peril and risked their health. This issue in particular has exacerbated those conditions for women who deserve better.
I am relieved that that is beginning to face a serious challenge within the Executive, and, as always, that seems to be down to pressure built outside of these four walls by women who have had to campaign for far too long for basic medical care. I pay tribute to those campaigners, who work tirelessly for little thanks or return from most members of the Executive. Their efforts are noted today, however, and they should go down in history for creating the only progress that we have seen to date.
I will now come on to the specifics of the Bill. I will be clear: I oppose the Bill for a number of reasons. I seriously question the justifications made for the Bill, and I will speak about those now. The Bill, as we have already heard, directly contradicts the recommendations of CEDAW. I believe in a woman's right to choose, because reproductive coercion is abhorrent and dangerous. I support the Canadian model, whereby abortion is treated as a medical issue rather than as a legal or criminal one. This is a gross effort to play off the needs of women to have proper modern medical care against people with disabilities, many of whom have been very clear that they face greater barriers to abortion access. They would like to see abortion care provided locally for women, themselves included.
The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women issued a joint statement in September 2018 that pointed out that restrictions to abortion access often hit disabled women harder than others. That is worth emphasising.
In a letter sent to all MLAs from Mr Givan on the morning that the Bill was introduced in the Assembly, the word "woman" or "women", or even the words "pregnant person", was not written once. That is important to say, because the Bill's sponsor attempts to separate the Bill from the wider issue of restricting reproductive rights. We have seen a wave of abortion restrictions implemented internationally by various right-wing politicians. Those have varied in specifics, but there is one common factor, and it is present in Mr Givan's Bill: the attempt to control a woman's actions over her body and her pregnancy.
In the same letter, Mr Givan acknowledged:
"The tragic and complex cases where babies have a fatal diagnosis".
We know that late diagnoses of severe fetal impairment are also tragic and complex. They are usually given in cases of wanted and loved pregnancies. The women who receive that diagnosis are impacted on in a way which many of us will never be in a position to understand or question. Many of those diagnoses are possible only after 20 weeks. Medical experts tell us that their patients need time to process the information while also dealing with the shock. The Bill would strip them of that time, by rushing them to make a decision about termination before 24 weeks, potentially leading to more abortions, which the Member, I presume, does not want to see happen.
I am not a medical expert, so I refer Mr Givan to Doctors for Choice and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which stated:
"Preventing access beyond 24 weeks is not workable because most serious abnormalities are only detected at the 20-week scan or later. Women need time for diagnostic tests and specialist advice in order to decide what is best for them and their families."
Only women will know what they can manage within their individual set of circumstances. Moreover, we know from doctors that making a diagnosis of a fatal abnormality can be incredibly difficult. I wonder how Mr Givan can be so confident about what exactly constitutes a severe fetal impairment and a fatal fetal impairment, when doctors are very vocal about how difficult that can be.
I again refer him and others to Doctors for Choice, which has stated:
"This bill seeks to remove abortion in cases of any severe impairment. Severe impairments are wide-ranging and can include complex abnormalities that are likely to shorten lifespan or lead to significant lifelong disability with complex needs."
From a medical standpoint, it is not always possible to distinguish clearly between a severe fetal impairment and a fatal fetal disability.
The Member, when speaking at the Health Committee last week, did not confirm whether he had spoken with a fetal medical consultant. That suggests that he had not. Since the Health Committee meeting last week, I have spoken with a fetal medical consultant who is very concerned and angry that the Bill was brought forward at all. The consultant expressed to me that it is very rare for terminations to happen after 24 weeks and strongly, strongly, strongly refutes the idea that terminations happen on a whim or that women decide to terminate based solely on a cleft palate or club foot diagnosis. That consultant made it clear that that is simply not true and is an inaccuracy.
When late terminations occur, they do so because there is a severe fetal abnormality or the woman's life is at risk, something that does not seem to be part of the consideration of the Member who has brought forward the Bill.
The irony of the proposal is that, if it were to be implemented, it could lead, as I said, to a possible increase in terminations before the 24-week period as women receive the news that it may be a difficult pregnancy. Rather than having time to consider their options or what is best for them, they could be effectively forced and rushed into a termination that they may not have the option of having after 24 weeks if the diagnosis is severe or fatal, especially as they wait for scans to come through.
It is worth repeating that consultants do not decide on a whim what happens in these cases. They have multidisciplinary team meetings and come to a consensus on issues around fatal, very severe and life-threatening issues in regard to later terminations. The reality is that, if the changes being proposed are implemented, women will be forced, as others have said, to travel or to have a pregnancy. The fact that pregnancies are common and can be very happy for many families does not detract from the fact that over 303,000 women die in childbirth every year. That is a frightening figure.
It is the case that we have a higher rate of genetic conditions than other regions of the UK. For some families, it may not be the first time that they are faced with such a diagnosis. They may have already watched a child die after a very short life or have been forced to carry to term a pregnancy that, they knew, would not survive for long beyond the womb. I ask those supporting the Bill to consider the impact on those women and their families of putting them through that traumatic experience again by stripping them of their right — their right — to termination.
Unlike the DUP and the parties supporting the Bill, I trust women and their doctors to decide whether they should continue with a pregnancy. I do not question whether those women inherently devalue people with disabilities because they have had a termination or may want to consider a termination. I do not question their ability to love and care for their other children or future children who may have disabilities simply because they have opted for a termination. In essence, I do not presume that women are simple-minded and callous people. There has been an insinuation today that people who support or choose abortion in cases of severe fetal impairment devalue the lives of people with disabilities. I utterly reject that and implore those on the opposite Benches to speak to women's groups as urgently as possible on that issue.
I also implore them to look in the mirror. Mr Givan asked what value we would like the Assembly to place on people with disabilities. My answer is this: a hell of a lot more than the discriminatory and degrading treatment that far too many people with disabilities have to endure because of the policies of this and previous Executives. Disabled people and their families were effectively abandoned during the public health crisis. People whose support worker or family member needed to shield themselves were left without an alternative. Families caring for disabled children or disabled adults were effectively abandoned, as schools, day centres and respite provision closed without there being safe childcare in place. Those whose support workers could not continue to support them had to find their own PPE. Of course, disabled people living in care homes, many of whom are younger than the average resident, had to take their chances with the virus. Many families were pushed to breaking point by 24/7 caring, without any break, for months at a time. Those same families and people with disabilities have been hammered by the introduction of the personal independence payment (PIP) via welfare reform, which the Member's party strongly supported. It is no wonder that many are cynical about the sudden interest in disability rights.
The debate is not about disability in the way that, certainly, Mr Givan hopes to portray it. If it were, it would have focused on the lack of services that terrifies new mothers with disabled children. It would have taken Departments to task over the lack of access to services, such as speech and language therapy or respite for families. It would have prevented the attempts, several years ago, to cut the number of special needs schools in Belfast that people had to fight to resist on the streets. If the Bill were about preventing discrimination against people with disabilities, why would it not scrap or propose to scrap welfare reform and detail a new social security system that values and provides for people properly instead of sending them to food banks, a high proportion of which are used by people with disabilities? It would set about ending privatisation in our care sector and invest in better care for people who need and deserve it. The Bill is about abortion, but abortion at any stage does not threaten people with disabilities, and that needs to be emphasised.
We should dispel the assumption that we, especially male MLAs, have any right to tell women what to do with their bodies; that women who terminate certain pregnancies are wrong to do so; and that some women are inherently frivolous or callous when it comes to making decisions about termination and need to be kept in line with the law. In Canada, where abortion is treated like any other healthcare and there are no restrictions or time limits, the proportion of abortions carried out after 20 weeks is considerably lower than it is in Britain. In Britain, 1·9% of abortions are carried out after 20 weeks, whereas, in Canada, the figure is just 0·6%. Why is there such a difference? Mainly because there is no red tape, and doctors and patients can make decisions based on clinical need. I suggest to those who introduced the Bill and those who back it that their interests might be better served with a Canadian approach, which would also treat women with a good deal more respect than we have seen in the Chamber today.

Alex Maskey: I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting for 10 minutes until 7.00 pm. The next Member to speak will be Trevor Lunn.
The sitting was suspended at 6.51 pm and resumed at 7.02 pm.

Alex Maskey: I call Trevor Lunn.

Trevor Lunn: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and thanks for the big build-up over the last 10 minutes.

Alex Maskey: Just wait for the drum roll.

Trevor Lunn: I am glad that we are having this debate. It is a discussion that we needed to have. The amount of heat generated by what is, effectively, a one-line Bill, is amazing. It shows the level of feeling around the issue. We have experienced it before, and I have a feeling that we will experience it again, but it is right that we have the discussion.
Before I go on, I want to say that the contributions in the early part of the debate from Sinead McLaughlin, speaking against the Bill, and Rosemary Barton and Joanne Bunting, who were speaking for the Bill, were thoughtful, thought-provoking and emotional. It is right that we have those sorts of contributions. That is not to dismiss any of the other contributions. It has been an interesting day. We have also had an astonishing amount of advice in the past few days from experts and interested groups, parties and individuals. Again, that indicates the level of interest in the issue.
I am pro-choice. I always have been and always will be. I respect the right of women to conduct their own affairs, look after their own bodies and, to a large extent, decide on what they do with regard to the termination of a pregnancy. Someone mentioned the various discussions that we have had on the issue. I remember the 2016 debate on the first Justice Bill, when the DUP tabled an amendment that would have almost banned abortion in this country and which threatened to put medical professionals in jail for 10 years if they stepped outside the very strict guidelines. I mention that because, during the debate, Jim Wells, who has been in and out of the Chamber today, congratulated me on being the first MLA, along with Steven Agnew, to openly support abortion on demand and a woman's right to choose.
I do not think that he meant to use the word "congratulate", but he did. I treasure that moment, because he quite accurately summed up my feelings about this.
The debate that we had on fatal fetal abnormality has been referenced today. Stewart Dickson and I tabled an amendment on that to the second Justice Bill. We lost, but I mention it because, during the debate, we were heavily criticised because what we were proposing was being made out to be the first step down the road to exactly what the regulations state now. The First Minister mentioned the word "eugenics", and that word was used a lot during that debate, which went on until nearly midnight. We really had to defend ourselves, because what we were about was making room for abortion on the grounds of fatal fetal abnormality and nothing else.
I can say at this point that I am absolutely in support of Paul Givan's Bill. I am broadly in support of the regulations that have provoked this discussion, apart from the few words linked at the end: "Severe fetal impairment", I think that they are. Paul Givan and I come at this from different directions completely. I take my view, and it is in direct contradiction with anything that Paul would believe, but we can still manage to have a friendly discussion about it and try to chart the way forward for this wee country and to do the right thing, principally by our women and also, to some extent, by our men.
Amnesty International has been referenced a few times today, and I have a huge respect for that organisation. It does a terrific job in the area in which it works. I have worked with it several times on issues such as same-sex marriage and this particular issue. It takes the view that we are legally bound by the CEDAW recommendations to provide access to abortions in cases of severe fatal impairment and fatal fetal abnormality. It concludes that, should this Bill pass the Assembly, the UK Government, as others have said, would have to withhold Royal Assent because of the breach of the human rights of women in Northern Ireland. I normally attach great weight to anything that Amnesty says, but I will say a few things about that particular opinion. The Bill has been confirmed, at least by this Assembly, as being legislatively competent. There is also the Supreme Court judgement, from which other Members have read. I will read out a bit of it too. In a non-binding judgement, it found that there is no human right to have an abortion on the grounds of a non-fatal disability. It is very straightforward. Lord Mance said about children with non-fatal disabilities:
"in principle a disabled child should be treated as having exactly the same worth in human terms as a non-disabled child".
Somebody is therefore wrong. There are two sides to this. I do not know in what way the Westminster Government will handle this situation if it comes to it.
There is also the comment that Mrs Kelly read out from Viscount Younger from 15 June, which was just after the regulations were passed. He said:
"As abortion remains a devolved issue, the Assembly is now able to legislate, or indeed amend the regulations, should it so wish".
I do not know whether that is the case or not, but it was not contradicted.
Another bit that catches my eye is that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 defines "discrimination" as treating a person less favourably by reason of a disability than one:
"treats or would treat others to whom that reason does not or would not apply".
Finally, section 75 of our Northern Ireland Act 1998 places a statutory duty on public authorities to:
"have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity"
for persons with a disability. When does that duty start? That is my question. It must start before birth. It must do. It must confer that right on the unborn child just as much as it does on somebody who is looking for a job. I know that that is not a fair comparison, but you know what I mean.
There is also disagreement across the medical profession. Doctors for Choice UK and the royal college argue against the Bill, apparently because of the medical challenge of distinguishing between fatal fetal abnormality and serious fetal impairment in, as they refer to it, the short period between the 20-week scan and the 24-week limit. I do not quite know where they are coming from in that respect, but I will leave that hanging. We have all received a letter from Dr Cupples representing 190-odd GPs in Northern Ireland that contradicts that view; it is very much supportive of the Bill and urges us all to support it. Who do you believe?
There is also an ongoing debate in the Republic of Ireland. There is a reluctance down there among the medical profession to make a diagnosis of fatal fetal abnormality in case they get it wrong and are subjected to criminal sanction. Doctors have to make difficult decisions every day of their life. Sometimes, they get it wrong, but, most of the time, they get it right. I do not know a doctor — I doubt that I ever will — who did not do his very best to make the right decision in the circumstances.
I have a mailbox full of pleas from the public to support the Bill and honour the commitment that I made last June to do so. It has not always been my practice to respect public opinion; I have had my moments when I did not run with public opinion. I prefer to do what is right. I think that we are doing what is right in supporting the Bill. I believe that we, as a society, are better than to allow a measure that permits the abortion of babies with a non-life-threatening impairment up to full term. I cannot believe that the Assembly would accept that. That is the thrust of the Bill. There are other issues that have been brought in around abortion services and funding and support for women through their pregnancy. I completely agree with all that. The Executive are completely at fault; they are dragging their heels in terms of implementing what was agreed up to two years ago. It is not the fault of the Health Minister. Having praised Paul Givan, I have to say that his party is holding up the issue. That should not be happening. We are bound to do this, so we might as well get on with it. Let us get it done.
There is a conspiracy theory that the DUP is on a track to roll back the progress that has been made in that area. Paul Givan and I sat on Lisburn council together. We sit here together. We are neighbours and friends. He and I had a detailed discussion about this before the Bill came to the Assembly. I asked him straight, "Is this one step down the road that people like me would not like to go?". He assured me that it is not. We had a debate on a private Member's motion about this issue in which I accepted the Sinn Féin amendment rather than the DUP one. I asked Paul, when he was making his winding-up speech, whether it was preparation for another assault on the abortion regulations that we now have. He assured me that it was not.
This is a one-line Bill that is designed to remove a few words to rectify a situation with which none of us should be happy. I regard the wording of that clause — "Severe fetal impairment" — as being downright offensive in terms of trying to produce that as grounds to have an abortion. We have heard about situations of aborting a fetus up to 35 or 38 weeks. That is a fully formed child, whose only offence is that it has a non-life-threatening disability, impairment or whatever. We should not be going there. We should not be doing that. I hope that the Assembly will do the right thing and support the Bill as it stands.
I do not always agree with the DUP, as everybody knows, but there is always a first time. This is an important issue. A lot of people are watching to see what we will do. I sincerely hope that the will of the Assembly and our population — I believe that the population is on our side on this — can be expressed tonight in support of the Bill, and we can send an unequivocal message to Westminster about our decision. Where it goes after that, I do not know. When you see CEDAW and the Supreme Court in opposition, I do not know who will win. I heard the comments of the Secretary of State, and someone — it might have been Dolores Kelly — said that she would not agree with or believe a word he said. You are being very kind to him.

Dolores Kelly: I was measured.

Trevor Lunn: I would go much further than that. Who do you believe and what is going to happen? I do not know. I ask everybody here to support the Bill. I look forward to hearing Paul Givan's closing comments, after Claire Sugden.

Claire Sugden: Mr Givan's Bill seeks to amend only one element of the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 — 7(1)(b) — to remove or repeal the regulation that allows termination of pregnancy up to term in cases of severe fetal impairment. Can I, therefore, assume that, as the Bill does not attempt to address any other elements of the abortion legislation, in particular, fatal fetal abnormalities, the proponent of the Bill accepts those types of cases? I say "accept" rather than "agree" because I understand the Member's personal view on the issue more generally.
There seems to be much focus in the debate on the interpretation of regulation 7, in that it mirrors the law in GB, which allows abortion up to term for conditions such as Down's syndrome, cleft palate and club foot, but does it have to? I cannot see anywhere that suggests that Northern Ireland cannot develop its own interpretation, especially as the GB interpretation is outdated. It was interpreted at a point when there was less information and is not reflective of views in the UK today.
To be fair, it suggests that people with those specific conditions cannot lead fulsome lives, which is entirely wrong. My nephew had a quite severe club foot. He is now 11 years old and can run rings around me. He has a fulsome life. Maybe our focus needs to be on interpretation rather than legislation. I have concerns about the Bill because, in some severe cases — I do not mean Down's syndrome or club foot; I mean severe cases of fetal impairment — it may be a reasonable medical choice for parents. I am not an expert; no Member of the Assembly is. However, I am sure that there are examples of severe fetal impairment where most of us would accept, not necessarily agree with, the choice.
I recall, from the discussion about fatal fetal abnormalities in 2016, that some Members did not agree or accept it as a reason then, but, interestingly, they are inadvertently accepting it now. That is not a criticism, because opinions change and more information becomes available, but it is a fundamental difficulty of this debate. Furthermore, definitions of both severe fetal impairment and fatal fetal abnormality are ambiguous and subject to interpretation. It remains a point of debate about fatal fetal abnormalities, and I do not intend to cause distress in asking this: at what point is it fatal? Surely, it is shortly after birth or within 28 days, as defined in the Republic of Ireland. I have a constituent who was diagnosed with a fatal fetal abnormality, and she chose to carry that child to term. She gave birth. The baby was beautiful, as all babies are, but was severely disabled and died at 13 days old. Is that an experience of severe fetal impairment or fatal fetal abnormality?
It seems that the term "fetal impairment" has developed because of the uncertainty around the definition of fatal fetal abnormality. Poor guidance and interpretation have meant that doctors do not want to be responsible for those decisions, and that is the fault of government. Mr Lunn pointed to that when he said that people do not want to make a decision about the matter so they want to keep the definition as loose as "severe fetal impairment" in order that they will not, potentially, have a lawsuit against them. Maybe that is something that we need to consider in relation to protecting doctors, particularly if we are still content to leave fatal fetal abnormality in the legislation. I do not judge the choices of parents in those circumstances because I have compassion to know that the decision to terminate is probably the most difficult decision that they will take, and I will never undermine anyone for saying that it is less than that.
Another constituent had a diagnosis of fatal fetal abnormality, and she very much wanted her baby so that her son could have a brother or a sister. Upon diagnosis, she treated it almost like a miscarriage and assumed that the health service in Northern Ireland would help her, but she was wrong. She journeyed to England for an abortion, and she told me that while she felt so much guilt, she equally knew the joy of being pregnant and how people responded to her as a pregnant woman, her pregnant belly and her glow. Understandably, she did not want to spend 10 weeks explaining why her feelings did not match theirs. Rather than provide her with healthcare and support at the time, government's failure scarred her.
My biggest concern about this legislation is that we are going to create a similar situation again. It is not about Down's syndrome or cleft palate or club foot; it is about severe impairment. Depending on the doctor's subjective diagnosis, and whether they diagnose as "severe" or "fatal", you might potentially accept their decision. So, what is the issue here? It is one of interpretation. I have concerns about abortion law as it stands. My biggest concern comes from abortions up to term for a range of circumstances. If the Bill has the scope to address that element, then I might consider supporting it. I would be keen to hear what the proposer says in relation to that. Term limits require legislative change but interpretation of legislation does not.
The proposer has leaned heavily on disability discrimination. Members will know that constituents regularly tell us that they have suffered discrimination. In advising them, I refer them to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and section 75, my point being that discrimination is very specific in law. People may feel discriminated against, but our discriminations are not explicit enough to address those concerns. I am curious about that, because I genuinely do not know. Is the discrimination described as a principle of the Bill? Is it discrimination in law or is it Mr Givan's interpretation of discrimination?
Some legislation has been mentioned in relation to the issue at hand, but I do not know whether it applies, given that the person being discriminated in this instance is an unborn child. I would welcome it if any learned Members, for example, would intervene in order to enlighten me. Does our disability discrimination legislation apply to an unborn child? That is something that we are not sure about, so whilst we can point to discrimination, what do we mean by that?
To labour the point around the law, what about women? Is it a form of discrimination — indirect discrimination — to prevent access to public health services that affect only women? I am not a legally trained barrister or solicitor to consider this law on the way, but the Bill throws up so many uncertainties for me. If the Bill makes its full passage through the House, I expect to find it going to the courts, and then it will not be implemented. So, what was the point of all this?
I want to let the House know that I take this issue very seriously. I spend hours speaking with people on all sides of the issue because it is really important, not least because of my conflict around abortion. I want to say that abortion is not a binary choice between pro-life and pro-choice. It is an incredibly complicated issue in the context of an imperfect world and years of bad governance. Perhaps we should be providing better public services that support women and families, tackle societal attitudes, strengthen communities and address mental health. My goodness, we are a post-conflict society that has suffered years of trauma, yet we do not even scratch the surface of mental health.
People say that we have to support women more. Maybe that is where we need to start. It is not a choice when society gives you no choice. If we are truly pro-life, we fix society if we can take this forward.

Alex Maskey: I call on Paul Givan to make the winding-up speech and conclude the debate.

Paul Givan: As we close, I thank everybody for their contributions, challenging as it is to extend it to everybody. Nevertheless, people are entitled to express their views, and that has been done forcefully by Members. It has been a passionate debate, and that is right. It should be a passionate debate, because we are dealing with the value that we place on life and the serious issue of disability discrimination. In thanking Members for their contributions, I take a moment to thank all those who have written to us, emailed, called my office and shared their stories. That has been the most humbling part of this experience. It has given a platform to many families to speak about how much they love their child who has a disability and what they mean to them. We have heard many stories in that respect. It is because of them that the Bill has been introduced.
As my colleague Mr Lunn indicated, the Bill is a short one. Yet the debate, for some Members, has taken us into loyalist paramilitaries — Dr Archibald spoke about them, I think — LGBT rights, welfare reform, the Irish language and churches. I have never mentioned churches, I have never once lectured Dr Archibald on morality, and I never heard any Member supporting the Bill invoke religious belief as the basis for it. Some Members have taken the debate well beyond the general principles of the Bill. I sought, Mr Speaker, to follow your guidance at the start and kept my speech very much in line with the general principles of the Bill.
Mr Chambers, I think, mentioned how some Members had spent more time attacking the messenger than looking at the message, but my personal sensitivities are neither here nor there. I have sponsored the Bill, but I have done it with the support of other MLAs. The Assembly does not allow multiple signatures on a private Member's Bill. I asked and was told that only one Member could sponsor a Bill; otherwise, I would have had Members to co-sign it with me. The Bill represents many more than me, as an individual, or the DUP, as a political party; it is much broader than that. Beyond the party politics, Don't Screen Us Out, as an organisation, has led on the campaign. It does not take a position on the wider abortion debate; it does not describe itself as pro-life or pro-choice. This is the organisation that has engaged with Members and has led the campaign. Members need to ask why some Members opposite singled out the DUP and used other issues to cloud what the Bill is about. It is important that we stick to that.
I state the obvious: I speak on this as a male. I almost feel that I need to apologise for that sometimes. I am a father of three daughters and a husband. I represent thousands of females who have voted for me. Does it make my voice less important just because I am a male? Some Members seemed to indicate that no male Member of the House dare ever engage on this type of issue.
We need to raise the level of debate when considering this. Mr Lunn made the point that people outside the Chamber were watching. My phone has not stopped with the hurt and distress that has been caused to people. Heidi Crowter's mum has been messaging me throughout the debate, devastated at some of the comments that Members have made in the course of it. There is an audience outside this place that goes beyond me and beyond the political parties that are represented. We need to take cognisance of that.
If I went through every Member's contribution, we would be here a long time, and I do not intend to do that. I note that 26 Members contributed to the debate and four Ministers — the First Minister and deputy First Minister being two — so there is no doubt that this very short Bill has created a lot of interest across society and in the House.
I need to deal with a couple of things that were mentioned in some inaccurate commentary. Some of the presentation that I made to the Health Committee has, deliberately or otherwise, been misrepresented. There are things that I apparently said that I did not say, and I need to deal with the way that that has been characterised by some members of that Committee. I will not go through all the instances, but there were certainly more than one.
The Member for South Belfast Ms Bradshaw challenged the Assembly by asking this: do we need another courageous woman to fight for their rights? Absolutely we do, and Heidi Crowter is fighting for her rights and the rights of people like her. I commend her for that.
When we considered a lot of the issues, Members raised general themes, and I want to touch on them to assist folk in reaching their view. I appreciate that some Members are waiting for my response before making their final decision while others have taken a predetermined position.
It is not for me to get involved in how a political party navigates its internal politics, and I would not seek to get involved in what a party is trying to do. Members highlighted Sinn Féin's position: they can speak to that. I note that they will abstain today. I suppose that there is some hope for me, because, when we introduced a private Member's Bill on human trafficking, Sinn Féin was reluctant to support one element of it at the start. Once we got through the process, they came on board.
I do not need to repeat the quotes that were attributed to Ms Sheerin, because they are now on the record. Colm Gildernew, Chair of the Health Committee, was praised by Heidi Crowter when she appeared before the Committee because of what he had said about her on 2 June 2020. In that debate, he said:
"Sinn Féin does not support CEDAW's recommendations to provide abortion in the case of severe foetal impairment such as Down's syndrome. Our amendment welcomes the important intervention by disability campaigner Heidi Crowter, who has been referred to today, and rejects the specific legislative provision in the abortion legislation that goes beyond fatal foetal abnormalities to include non-fatal disabilities such as Down's syndrome. I support the amendment." — [Official Report (Hansard), 2 June 2020, p70, col 2].
That was the Sinn Féin amendment. They have chosen to abstain today; that is a matter for them. Issues were raised in justification for that, such as what happened with the mother-and-baby homes and the commissioning of services, which my Bill does not touch on. That has been the main plank. Let me acknowledge the injustices that have happened.
I want to touch on Sinead McLaughlin's contribution. I could tell from listening to her that there was pain there from her mother's experience. I could feel it when she was speaking about it, but, in the wider context of those injustices, that will not be resolved by perpetuating injustice on our most vulnerable — those who have disabilities. Let us put right the wrongs of the past in how people were treated, but let us not think that keeping that regulation in place will in any way deal with the hurt and pain of what went wrong in the past. It will not.
Some Members spoke of my consultation process. I think that it was Mr Muir who said that he had concerns about the way in which I had consulted. However, he went on to say that he was opposed to the general principle of the Bill, so, if it had been consulted on in the way that he would have wanted, he would still have opposed it because that would be the consistent position to take. Other Members cited that and indicated that I was seeking to rush the Bill through. I am not seeking to rush anything through. The Bill was introduced as per the normal procedures. The convention is four weeks before it comes to Second Stage. We have waited for four weeks. I have briefed the Health Committee. It is now subject to a vote of the Assembly, and it will go through the subsequent processes.
Compare that with Stella Creasy's amendment at Westminster. There was no consultation at all. That amendment was made to legislation on the re-establishment of this Executive. There was no engagement with disability rights organisations when that amendment was passed — none. When the regulations were produced, they were put through as statutory instruments by Committees of which no Member of Parliament from our jurisdiction was part. There was no consultation when those regulations were drafted and put through the system at Westminster. Yes, there was broad consultation by the Northern Ireland Office, in which 79% of respondents said that they opposed change. Therefore, when Members seek to use their interpretation of consultation and say that they want to go through the normal Assembly processes, I say this to them gently: the standard that was applied in how Westminster dealt with the issue was cheered on by some of those who now criticise my Bill. It does not compare at all with the process followed by Westminster.
Members raised the legislative competence of the Bill. I do not intend to repeat the issues. The Health Committee got legal advice on that from the Assembly's Legal Services in closed session. It is privy to legal opinion to which I am not. I assume that it interrogated that advice in detail. However, it will have been the same legal opinion that came to the Assembly and Speaker when I first put the Bill forward before Christmas. It was subject to the normal considerations. I assume, because the Speaker allowed it to get to this stage, that it was compliant. However, I have sought legal opinion from a number of Crown counsel on a range of things in respect of the Bill. When looking at the aspect of legal competence, some Members, Ms Sugden being one of them, raised the point that, if the Bill ends up being judicially reviewed, as it might well be — all legislation is subject to judicial review; that is not unique to passing laws — it would be struck down and would not stand. Here is some Crown counsel legal opinion in respect of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Let me read it into the record:
"Northern Ireland is not a member state of a federal union. A consequence of the present devolution settlement set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is that both Parliament and the Assembly may legislate on the same topic and that each legislature may repeal or amend the Acts of the other. The Sewel convention is designed to avoid such overlapping occurring in practice, at least as far as Government legislation in Parliament in concerned, but that such an overlap exists is an obvious element of our constitutional law".
That advice goes on to say:
"None of the barriers set up by section 6 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 apply to the present Bill. The Bill deals with a transferred matter, ie abortion. Parliament has also dealt with that transferred matter, but that does not make it any less a transferred matter. It has not ceased to be a transferred matter. The Assembly is entirely free to amend the regulations in the manner proposed by the Bill".
I am almost sure that, if the Bill is to be subject to judicial review, there will be arguments in respect of that. However, there is that Crown counsel advice, and, hopefully, it will reassure the Assembly's Legal Services that the advice that has, I assume, been given to the Speaker is correct.
Members also raised the issue of international human rights legislation. I think that Minister Deirdre Hargey said that the Bill was not in line with international human rights. It is important that I touch on that for a moment. Crown counsel legal advice on the issue came from Brett Lockhart QC, with whom Members will be familiar:
"The United Kingdom has ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2009. The preamble at paragraph g recognises that discrimination against any person on the basis of disability is a violation of the inherent dignity and worth of the human person. Article 10 of the convention reaffirms that every human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others. Article 12 reaffirms that persons with disabilities have the right to recognition everywhere as persons before the law".
That is from a United Nations convention: not a committee, a convention.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that a child:
"needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth".
That is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It says "before" birth: not just after birth, but before. That is an international human rights standard. The Bill is entirely in keeping with human rights legislation.
The Member for South Belfast Ms Bradshaw, I think, indicated that, when this goes to the UK Supreme Court, it will be struck down and the court will rule against it. I would love to have such foresight. I would start playing the lottery if I knew exactly what the judgments will be when it comes to these kinds of things. The Member for South Belfast did not say — other Members did: wrongly, in my view — that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission took a case to the UK Supreme Court and sought a declaration of incompatibility with human rights laws, not just on non-fatal fetal abnormality but on this aspect, severe fetal impairment. That was wrong of the commission, but it did it. It went to the UK Supreme Court and lost, so we know what the UK Supreme Court will do because a case was brought by the Human Rights Commission, and it failed in that.
Some Members have aptly quoted some of the judgments that were read out at the time. Lord Mance said:
"But in principle a disabled child should be treated as having exactly the same worth in human terms as a non-disabled child ... This is also the consistent theme of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, expressing concerns about the stigmatising of persons with disabilities as  living a life of less value than that of others, and about the termination of pregnancy at any stage on the basis of foetal abnormality, and recommending States to amend their abortion laws accordingly".
Lord Kerr said:
"UNCRPD is based on the premise that if abortion is permissible, there should be no discrimination on the basis that the foetus, because of a defect, will result in a child being born with a physical or mental disability."
That was the UK Supreme Court. This was judged on in our own courts, and Judge Horner, in a preceding judgment, said:
"I do consider that it is a legitimate aim to keep in place a prohibition on abortion where the foetus will be viable but the unborn child faces non-fatal disability. There should be equality of treatment between, on the one hand, the foetus which will develop into a child without physical or mental disability and, on the other hand, the foetus which will develop into a child with a physical and/or mental disability which is non-fatal."
We have judicial decisions in the area of law that we are speaking about. Those judgments address some of the problems facing those who are trying to get around the issue — they are clearly wrestling with it — of what is framed as the woman's right to choose.
I do not agree with the Green Party's policy, but, to be fair, its policy is clearly on the record: it is the right to choose in any circumstance at any stage. Therefore, when it comes to this Bill, I can understand the approach that it is taking. However, to be consistent on that and to eradicate the discriminatory aspects of this law, which is what the United Nations Committee said by way of a statement on CEDAW and the UNCRPD, you just make abortion available at any stage for any reason. Therefore, you eliminate the discriminatory aspect of the law that singles out somebody with a disability. It would be a consistent position to say that, if you do not want legislation in this area which is against preborn babies with disabilities, abortion is allowed in every circumstance at any stage. You then eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability, but you cannot get round that. That is the problem for those who have quoted paragraph 85 of CEDAW, which is the paragraph that that blunt instrument at Westminster put in. That paragraph recognises the conflict that exists in this area, and I note that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists omitted that from its submission.
Article VII of the CEDAW recommendation — it is paragraph 85 (b)(iii), which is the area that the Bill relates to — talks about:
"severe foetal impairment, including FFA, without perpetuating stereotypes towards persons with disabilities".
There is the key phrase of the internal contradiction of paragraph 85 in CEDAW. It advocates for abortion in cases of:
"Severe foetal impairment, including FFA, without perpetuating stereotypes towards persons with disabilities".
This law does perpetuate, so paragraph 85 of CEDAW is internally contradictory. One could argue that the Bill is entirely in line with paragraph 85 of CEDAW because it removes the contradiction in terms of the perpetuation of stereotypes of people with disabilities.
Members raised broader points in that area. We spoke about the disability discrimination laws. Some Members rightly highlighted the fact that parties have campaigned for equality of treatment and opportunity. It has been at the core of some political parties and is the essence of what they are. That is why we have the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 came about through the Belfast Agreement. Section 75 places a statutory duty on public authorities to have:
"due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity ... between persons with a disability".
That is part of the Belfast Agreement through section 75, which I consistently and regularly hear about from Members.
We also have the Disability Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which amended the 1995 Act. Again, that requires public authorities:
"to promote positive attitudes towards disabled persons".
How are we promoting a positive attitude towards disabled persons when, in and of itself and for no other reason, a termination of pregnancy can be granted because of a disability. That does not engage the mother in that pregnancy. Disability is in and of itself a grounds for termination. In our law, up to 12 weeks, termination can take place for any reason. After 12 weeks, there are three reasons for termination: the mother's physical and mental welfare, fatal fetal abnormality and non-fatal disabilities.
Members, I do not know what more I can say about how this law is against people with disabilities, flies in the face of international human rights declarations and goes against legislation passed by the Assembly on disability discrimination. The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is clear:
"The Committee is concerned about perceptions in society that stigmatize persons with disabilities ... and about the termination of pregnancy at any stage on the basis of fetal impairment. The Committee recommends that the State party amend its abortion law accordingly."
That recommendation was to Great Britain. Great Britain first passed this legislation in 1990. It changed the 1967 Act before the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities made its proclamation on abortion law. However, now it has done that, and some Members seem to advocate that I should look to Great Britain as a model and exemplar. It is not. I have much more affinity with my Irish brothers and sisters in the Republic of Ireland on this issue than I do with any political representation in Great Britain. I will look to Dublin more than I will look to London on the issue. Some Members make the argument that somehow the Bill contradicts unionist credentials. Really and truly, this transcends that type of identity politics of whether you are unionist, nationalist or other. That is a very strange argument to make.

John O'Dowd: Will the Member give way?

Paul Givan: I will give way to Mr O'Dowd.

John O'Dowd: The Member has made a detailed and interesting presentation. I am always cautious when listening to selected quotes on legal determinations because often, when you turn the page, there is another legal argument going against your point. I am sure that that will all be sorted out in Committee.
If you want to follow your Irish brothers and sisters on the matter, will you encourage your party to commission services that were enacted in law in the legislation that you are seeking to amend? That would be an important step.
Maybe you will come to Mr Lunn's point. He said that you told him that this is the end of your legislative journey on the matter rather than the start.

Paul Givan: I thank Mr O'Dowd for that. I welcome the engagement, and I will welcome being able to engage further with him when I get to the Health Committee.
On the first of the two issues that he raised — I think that Mr Allister mentioned it — the Bill is exactly as it says. It is the Severe Fetal Impairment Abortion (Amendment) Bill. It is a single-clause Bill. It is not for me to rule what will be within scope, but I do not believe that it can be added to or taken away from unless you vote against it. I do not see where you can do that. For my part, I will not table amendments to the Bill. It is as it has been produced. I will make decisions on whatever other Members seek to do at another time or place. I suppose that nobody should be surprised at my position on the wider issue in respect of the matters, but that is not how it should be viewed if you are looking at it and asking, "What does Paul Givan think?". The Bill speaks for itself.
On the commissioning of services, again, I appreciate the Member wanting to draw me into that, but the Bill does not deal with the commissioning of abortion services. That is not part of the general principles of the Bill. Where there is a discussion of that at the Executive, I am sure that my Executive colleagues will facilitate that. The wider point goes back to the way in which the legislation was brought in. I have some sympathy for the Minister of Health on that, and I have asked numerous questions for written answer of him about it. He indicated to me that Westminster imposed the legislation, and his position, up to this point, has been that it should pay for it. Let us see how the Executive manage that issue, but that is not what my Bill is about.
Mr O'Dowd brought me neatly to the end of the point about the legal arguments and discussions of international human rights law and how Westminster dealt with it. A number of colleagues spoke about the different medical opinions and quoted the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and Doctors for Choice. I dealt with that during my opening remarks, although I appreciate that not everyone will have been here for that. I put on the record contributions that have been given to me by medical professionals who disagreed with that opinion. We also received the letter that Mr Lunn spoke about, and I understand that it now has over 200 signatories, including not just GPs but consultants.
Those who proclaim to speak on behalf of the entirety of the medical profession — somehow the royal college is representative of them — are not listening to those who said that that is not the case. We have consultants in the Belfast Trust and the Western Trust who have put their position on that on the record. I could go on, but, as I said, it extends to those who work in sexual and reproductive healthcare, palliative medicine, emergency medicine, general surgery and psychiatry. All those medical professionals said, "Support this Bill" and, "We support this Bill". Those who advocate that we should be against the Bill because of the medical profession are closing their ears to that different opinion. I accept that there are those in the medical profession who have advocated against the Bill. I do not deny that, but neither should Members deny that there are significant numbers of people in our medical profession who have asked for the Bill to be supported.
I suppose that I should read from the letter that was sent to Members. I will not read it all, but it is worth putting the opening paragraph on the record. The open letter, which has now been signed by over 200 doctors, consultants and medical professionals, read:
"We read with real concern the submission to MLAs presented by the political advisor to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

There can sometimes be a tendency for doctors, or doctors’ bodies, to give the impression that there is a unanimous medical view which should be respected, or even the impression that a body’s members have been consulted on topics such as these.

We the undersigned are all doctors who fundamentally disagree with the contents of the RCOG submission.

It is of course the right of the Political Advisor to the RCOG to make a submission to MLAs, but it is also our right as doctors caring for patients with disabilities to do the same."
Some Members spoke about where the public are on this issue, and Mr Lunn pointed out that he does not always go in line with public opinion, and neither do I. I suppose that that is something that we have in common. If we hold a conviction on an issue, we will keep to that, and I do, as do others. However, it is worth noting again that there has been a public petition for this private Member's Bill. I think that it is the highest ever responded to. Some 26,814 people have signed it, calling on the leaders of the political parties to support the Bill. We have also had 1,618 people with Down's syndrome and their families calling for MLAs to support the Bill, and we have had 200-plus doctors asking us to support the Bill.
Public opinion polling was also carried out by LucidTalk on the issue, and it is interesting that, sometimes, Members will seek to represent their constituency, even if that does not necessarily correlate with their own opinion; they see their role as being representative of their broader constituency. A specific question was polled for — this is only going back to June last year — and people were asked the question around abortion for those with Down's syndrome and cleft lip. In those two areas, only 20% of people said that they supported the law, and 80% either opposed it or did not have a view, but the overwhelming majority opposed it. On the issue of those with cleft lip, only 15% supported it. The overwhelming majority were against it. So, if Members want to represent wider public opinion, I appreciate that we all need to be influenced by legal issues around courts and international human rights, but I believe that we have the law on our side, we have international human rights on our side and we also have public opinion on our side in respect of supporting this Bill going through to the next stage of the process. I hope that, in that engagement, other people will come on board.
I think that I have covered as many issues as I wish to. Please do not think that not namechecking Members or addressing their specific issues means that, in any way, I am being disrespectful. I would not want any Member to think that. I hope that we can move this on to the next stage of the process. It will go to Committee Stage, when the Committee will be in a position to put out a wider call for evidence, and different people can respond to it at that stage.
I trust that the issues have been covered in as much detail as I can possibly give and that I have given due courtesy and respect to everybody, even when they have disagreed with me. I commend the Second Stage of the Bill to the House.
Question put.

The Assembly divided:
 Ayes 48; Noes 12
 AYES 
 Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mrs Barton, Mr Beggs, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Ms S Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Durkan, Mr Easton, Mrs Foster, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Ms Hunter, Mr Irwin, Mrs D Kelly, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyons, Mr Lyttle, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Miss McIlveen, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Stalford, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
 Tellers for the Ayes: Mrs Barton, Mrs D Kelly
 NOES 
Ms Bailey, Mr Beattie, Mr Blair, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Carroll, Mr Catney, Mr Dickson, Mrs Long, Ms McLaughlin, Mr Muir, Mr O'Toole, Miss Woods
 Tellers for the Noes: Ms Bradshaw, Miss Woods
 The following Members voted in both Lobbies and are therefore not counted in the result: Ms Anderson, Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Mr Boylan, Ms Brogan, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Ms Ennis, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Mr Kearney, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr Lynch, Mr McAleer, Mr McCann, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms Mullan, Mr Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin
Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Severe Fetal Impairment Abortion (Amendment) Bill [NIA Bill 15/17-22] be agreed.

Alex Maskey: The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Health.
Adjourned at 8.22 pm.